It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Hefficide
If you are researching Constitutional law then I'm sure you've come across Jacobson v Massachusettes.
"...The highest court of Massachusetts not having held that the compulsory vaccination law of that State establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated even if he is not a fit subject at the time or that vaccination would seriously injure his health or cause his death, this court holds that, as to an adult residing in the community, and a fit subject of vaccination, the statute is not invalid as in derogation of any of the rights of such person under the Fourteenth Amendment."
originally posted by: SirHardHarry
Soo, abortion is wrong because it violates the right to life, and my body my choice don't matter.
But....vaccines and mask mandates are also wrong because it's my body my choice
You guys are silly and don't make much sense.
originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: Brassmonkey
Been doing a little research on Constitutional law and in my opinion
You're a Constitutional lawyer?
See Jacobson v Massachusetts:
A law that authorizes mandatory vaccination during an epidemic of a lethal disease, with refusal punishable by a monetary penalty, like the one at issue in Jacobson, would undoubtedly be found constitutional under the low constitutional test of “rationality review.” However, the vaccine would have to be approved by the FDA as safe and effective, and the law would have to require exceptions for those who have contraindications to the vaccine. A law that authorizes mandatory vaccination to prevent dangerous contagious diseases in the absence of an epidemic, such as the school immunization requirement summarily upheld in 1922, also would probably be upheld as long as (1) the disease still exists in the population where it can spread and cause serious injury to those infected, and (2) a safe and effective vaccine could prevent transmission to others.
Instead, the question was whether the state had overstepped its own authority and whether the sphere of personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment38 included the right to refuse vaccination.
Justice Harlan stated the question before the Court: “Is this statute . . . inconsistent with the liberty which the Constitution of the United States secures to every person against deprivation by the State?”2(p25) Harlan confirmed that the Constitution protects individual liberty and that liberty is not “an absolute right in each person to be, in all times and in all circumstances, wholly free from restraint”:
There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution. But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.2(p29)
Thus, the more specific questions were whether the safety of the public justified this particular restriction and whether it was enforceable by reasonable regulations. The Court answered yes to both questions. It noted that the vaccination law applied “only when, in the opinion of the Board of Health, that was necessary for the public health or the public safety.”2(p27) The board of health was qualified to make that judgment, and, consistent with its own precedents, the Court said that it was the legislature’s prerogative to determine how to control the epidemic, as long as it did not act in an unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive manner.2,39,40 Vaccination was a reasonable means of control:
originally posted by: DaBoogieMan
People don't care about their constitutional rights. They only get outraged when a football player kneels during the National Anthem; which was actually made to sell more flags.
originally posted by: Brassmonkey
Yes I have read the Jacobson SCOTUS case. What’s interesting about that case is there was no testing option. If that minister refused the injection he could have just paid a fine which is not an option on this Federal overreach.
I have read some counter arguments that the equal protection clause only applies to the states authority and that’s a dumb argument since SCOTUS has already ruled in 2013 that the 5th amendment due process clause and equal protection under the law is not mutually exclusive.
I think SCOTUS will rule on precedent of JACOBSON case and say that only the states have the authority to mandate vaccines. But also there is are so many things wrong with this mandate on so many levels. I mean you are going to deny religious exemptions to federal government workers and have no testing options?
So congress and the courts get their religious freedoms but not 9 millions feds?
a reply to: Phage
Just a little history the 14nth amendment equal protection clause was created so African Americans after the civil war were given the same due process as white people.
originally posted by: scrounger
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Stupidsecrets
1905 that disease was way more deadly. Not even in the same ballpark.
Not relevant. The principle is that individual rights must, at times, take the backseat to public health.
Can it be overturned? Yes. Has it been? No.
our "rights" must take back seat to public health?
do you REALLY STAND by this?
well then you must be ok/in favor with
suspending first amendment freedom of speach since "false information on covid" can lead to more deaths.
freedom to assemble since groups lead to outbreaks.. this includes defund police, blm, antifa, pro abortion, transexual rights, gay rights, democratic conventions, school board meetings, restaurants, going to big lot stores and grocery stores (we have delivery and amazon right?), ect.
freedom to address grievances to the government..
you know it is a "pandemic" and you cant question in anyway the edicts of the leaders..
how about fourth amendment
we have to search you at any time for any reason to make sure you have your covid card, to make sure you did go to your doctors appointment, to make sure your home and not at a "gathering", to search your home for anyone not a family member , and seach your person to make sure you have a mask on your persons at all times.
how about the fourteen amendment of due process..
you know do to the increased infection we must arrest you for violating the mandates in any way and hold you without trial until the infection numbers come down..just to be safe.
or a quick trial with no appeal to a "isolation camp" for "the safety of the population" until a government official (not even a doctor) determines your no longer a threat.
how about the fourth amendment
we must have a military person(s) housed and fed at your house... just to make sure you and your neighborhood are obeying the covid mandates.
hell we better temporarily suspend all courts to include the supreme court until the "pandemic" is under control
military and federal agencies have complete control with no recourse.
to include arrest, jail , and even deadly force without recourse or due process..
you know all for public health.
i am DIRECTLY CHALLENGING your comment and ASKING if all the other rights i just stated are ok for suspension for
looking forward to your answer..
originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: Hefficide
I believe that was in regards to small pox. A case will have to be made with 3rd party data and study, in my OPINION, on the severity of such disease, and the effectiveness of so called vaccine. Considering information changes on the hour or even half hour when it comes to So called vaccines And covid-19, this can/will become a bumpy ride. Not to mention they the federal government does not have the infrastructure in place to even enforce such action. Sure there will be an inception of online record keeping and grand database primitive at first that years from now will be state of the art biometric tracking.
This in my opinion seems to be the goal. Again if I am wrong now I can say I was just paranoid.