It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jacobson v. Massachusetts set the precedent for legalized eugenics.

page: 1
32

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I am pretty fed up with all the nonsense so I am posting this and people can say whatever they want but this is the truth of the matter. Spin it any way you want but if you don't understand what a legal precedent is, do some research.

The bottom line is that the precedent set by Jacobson v. Massachusetts was later used in 1927 by SCOTUS and was directly cited by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in order to justify involuntary sterilization of undesirables in the case of Carrie Buck.


The Court found that the law served the public health and welfare because “mental defectives” would produce degenerate criminal offspring or imbeciles who “sap the strength of the state.” In a chilling opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded:

"Society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Jacobson was cited as support for the general principle that public welfare was sufficient to justify involuntary sterilization. The decision extended the police power’s reach from imposing a monetary penalty for refusing vaccination to forcing surgery on a young woman against her will and depriving her of the ability to have children.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So, whenever you see someone smugly citing Jacobson v. Mass as justification for vaccine mandates, remember that and think of the dark history of the eugenics movement in America.

We are on a very slippery slope.


edit on 14-9-2021 by Chalcedony because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 03:33 PM
link   
But some scholars agree OW Holmes was an original RINO of the first kind 😃

And there may be some challengeable differences in the JvM case for today 😃




posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Chalcedony

I’ve read into this precedent. There might be more wiggle room than they thought, using this as their “iron fist”..

Here’s a quote from a story


The Jacobson decision was relatively limited in scope. First, Jacobson did not say that the government could hold you down and stick a needle in your arm. It said the government could, under certain circumstances, pass a law requiring you to get a vaccine or pay a $5 fine (about $150 in today’s dollars). So, the decision doesn’t necessarily support the idea that vaccination can be legally compelled. Second, the Court explicitly said there was no evidence that the smallpox vaccines were dangerous or didn’t work. At that time, smallpox vaccines had been around for a hundred years and had been shown to be relatively safe and effective. Had there been questions about the safety or efficacy of the smallpox vaccine in 1905, the Justices may have thought differently. Lastly, it’s important to note that Jacobson establishes a reasonableness test. Government actions must be reasonable under any circumstances, and what is defined as reasonable may change based on the facts. It doesn’t mean that when there’s an emergency, the government suddenly has more power and the courts must simply defer to that power. There is no world in which the government should enjoy the right to be unreasonable—even in a public health emergency. This gets at the root of why we should be skeptical of those who invoke Jacobson in today’s debate. Some legal experts seem to view the Jacobson decision as essentially a “free pass” for whatever emergency measures government officials feel are needed to combat COVID-19. But an emergency is not a blank check for politicians and bureaucrats to enact any law, regulation, or policy they choose. Even during an emergency, lawmakers must establish and enforce policies that balance public safety with individual rights, and they must do so by going through the proper channels while respecting our Separation of Powers. ~April 14, 2021 By ANASTASIA BODEN/ Pacific Legal Foundation



Link here to story


She makes some interesting points….. if it comes to it, I’ll pay the one time fee…. And tell Creepy Uncle Joe to suck it.



posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Chalcedony

This is not the only ignored ugly act done and accepted by our country. As much as we don't want to admit it, we have a very dark, embarrassing history, when it comes to how we have treated others in the past.

It has most often been at the whim, and the direction of the wealthy and the powerful. The poor just followed suit.

The Native Americans, the slaves, any people of color, anyone of undesired heritage, any foreigner, anyone deemed different, have been mistreated, even killed, throughout our history. We whitewash the rotten boards that create the walls of our house, to give the illusion of goodness, beauty, and security, but it is all a lie.

I believe the majority of the people are good, and they find these acts deplorable. But our basic sense of survival, is too strong, for the majority to put themselves in harms way, when they think they can find safety in turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the ugliness they shut their doors and close their blinds to.

Most people just want to be left alone. They want to live their lives in peace, and their goal is contentment. When Americans are content, and feel secure, they are often extremely generous. If they fear a lost of that security, or fear a threat to their lives and livelihood, they can be extremely selfish, cruel, and hostile.

It is what we are. We are only human after all. Don't put the blame on us.



posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Chalcedony

No spin necessary as much of this eugenics philosopy from the elite thinkers and medical mafia establishment goes way back, very deep dark entangled web of deception and still a number #1 priority among the Davos Club elites.

While researching JPL at Caltech I stumbled across The Human Betterment Foundation, of which Caltech’s Robert A. Millikan was a trustee, promoted forced sterilization in California. (Library of Congress)




The Human Betterment Foundation (HBF) was the brainchild of Ezra S. Gosney, who had settled in Pasadena with a fortune from farming and real estate and established the organization in 1929. The group’s membership roll guaranteed it a wide influence.

It included Rufus von KleinSmid, then the president of USC, Lewis Terman, a Stanford psychologist who pioneered the study of IQ, and Harry Chandler, the publisher of the Los Angeles Times.



American eugenicists found common cause with the emerging Nazi regime in Germany. In a 1934 article, Paul Popenoe, a lead researcher for the Human Betterment Foundation, saluted Adolf Hitler and the Nazis for their determination to achieve “national regeneration” by applying “biological principles to human society.”

Popenoe quoted liberally from Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” including his admonition that “to prevent defective persons from producing equally defective offspring, is an act dictated by the clearest light of reason.... the most human act of mankind.”

Caltech faces reckoning over its links to eugenics and sterilization movement

David Starr Jordan (was chancellor of Stanford University), a board trustee for HBF and also a member of the secretive COSMOS Club (posts) (founded by John Wesley Powell in 1868) in D.C. that both Dr. Fauci and Dr. Peter Daszak held meetings along with other pharma vax biowarfare conspirators.


Human Betterment Foundation & Dr. Clarence Gamble who is the great-uncle of Foster Gamble, heir to the Procter and Gamble fortune, who gave us "Thrive: What on Earth Will It Take?" (2011) (IMDB, Thrive II: This is What it Takes (2020) and The Reality of Truth (2016).

From North Carolina Sterilization Act in 1929:


Maafa 21 - Black Genocide in 21st Century America (2½ hr documentary 2009) - www.youtube.com...

"We have reached a period in the history of the world when ignorance is criminal and deserves the heaviest penalty. Ignorance is not black magic, but it is the greatest ally that the black magician has in the world today."
― Manly P. Hall

More than a hundred years ago, Rudolf Steiner wrote the following:



"In the future, we will eliminate the soul with medicine. Under the pretext of a 'healthy point of view', there will be a vaccine by which the human body will be treated as soon as possible directly at birth, so that the human being cannot develop the thought of the existence of soul and Spirit.

To materialistic doctors, will be entrusted the task of removing the soul of humanity. As today, people are vaccinated against this disease or that disease, so in the future, children will be vaccinated with a substance that can be produced precisely in such a way that people, thanks to this vaccination, will be immune to being subjected to the "madness" of spiritual life. He would be extremely smart, but he would not develop a conscience, and that is the true goal of some materialistic circles.

With such a vaccine, you can easily make the etheric body loose in the physical body. Once the etheric body is detached, the relationship between the universe and the etheric body would become extremely unstable, and man would become an automaton, for the physical body of man must be polished on this Earth by spiritual will. So, the vaccine becomes a kind of ahrimanic force; man can no longer get rid of a given materialistic feeling. He becomes materialistic of constitution and can no longer rise to the spiritual".

― Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925)

Note: from what I could find the above has been translated from German a dozen or so times over the decades and is an English paraphrased translation passed over the interwebs as a meme but cited by people such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr and several esoteric scholars. Prior to 2020 many would have thought this to be nonsense and/or this doesn't affect me or my kids.

Example sources:
Rudolf Steiner on Traditional Childhood Illnesses and Vaccines [PDF]

REMOVING THE SOUL OF HUMANITY

The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness



posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Chalcedony

Jacobson v. Massachusetts is (was) only applicable to state law. Biden's influence is over federal law which takes a back seat. His mandate only applies to and via the institutions that he has direct authority over.

Now, if you are a federal employee or your employer has more than 100 people, you are in murkier waters.

I do not see a significant amount of the states using this precedence to enforce a vaccine mandate. There would be a mass exodus.

I actually agree with a number of the points raised in the paper. It is incumbent upon leadership to invest the resources needed and develop a well thought plan to achieve the collective health goals of the nation.

That all being said, in my opinion we are not seeing a wide spread consideration to reference Jacob V. Mass. Additionally, I think there are far more nefarious things in the works to enforce compliance, like limiting your access to certain services or facilities if you refuse. There is a far greater possibility of this being implemented.

I still strongly recommend the vaccine, but if you have serious and legitimate concerns about it AND are willing to consider the medical data properly, then as the article highlights, it is incumbent upon the medical insititutions to help you reconcile your fears/mistrust.



posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I think the law that really needs to be enforced is that the Federal Government’s reach is to be limited to within the boundaries of the District of Columbia unless and until invited.



posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Chalcedony

Quite obviously the foundation of the original argument is that “mental defectives” are the problem.

That was 1927, this is 2021.

Good luck demonstrating mental defectives, in fact if you are a covidian and believe the Not Science, that might actually backfire.

Oh, and welcome back.



posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: myselfaswell

Actually, in this day and age it seems that if you value family, culture, traditions, prosperity etc... Then you are mentally defective...



posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: myselfaswell

Actually, in this day and age it seems that if you value family, culture, traditions, prosperity etc... Then you are mentally defective...


Hmmmm, yeah sh!t that's right, I forgot this is Clown World now on the planet Potato ....... dagnabbit.



posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Couldn't a person consider that the Second amendment has set a precedence? If so, why do Lefties keep trying to reinterpret it? Apparently, nothing is set in stone these days that can't be "redefined" by somebody or another with an agenda.

"And that's the way it is," to quote Walter Kronkite.



posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: EndtheMadnessNow
a reply to: Chalcedony

More than a hundred years ago, Rudolf Steiner wrote the following:



"In the future, we will eliminate the soul with medicine. Under the pretext of a 'healthy point of view', there will be a vaccine by which the human body will be treated as soon as possible directly at birth, so that the human being cannot develop the thought of the existence of soul and Spirit.

To materialistic doctors, will be entrusted the task of removing the soul of humanity. As today, people are vaccinated against this disease or that disease, so in the future, children will be vaccinated with a substance that can be produced precisely in such a way that people, thanks to this vaccination, will be immune to being subjected to the "madness" of spiritual life. He would be extremely smart, but he would not develop a conscience, and that is the true goal of some materialistic circles.

With such a vaccine, you can easily make the etheric body loose in the physical body. Once the etheric body is detached, the relationship between the universe and the etheric body would become extremely unstable, and man would become an automaton, for the physical body of man must be polished on this Earth by spiritual will. So, the vaccine becomes a kind of ahrimanic force; man can no longer get rid of a given materialistic feeling. He becomes materialistic of constitution and can no longer rise to the spiritual".

― Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925)

Note: from what I could find the above has been translated from German a dozen or so times over the decades and is an English paraphrased translation passed over the interwebs as a meme but cited by people such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr and several esoteric scholars. Prior to 2020 many would have thought this to be nonsense and/or this doesn't affect me or my kids.

Example sources:
Rudolf Steiner on Traditional Childhood Illnesses and Vaccines [PDF]

REMOVING THE SOUL OF HUMANITY

The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness


An excellant post. Every single sentence in your Rudolph Steiner quote glows in this era of darkness. But why do I sense the disinterest in this revelation by the self-styled bright sparks on this forum or anywhere else where scientism is referenced as being the highest authority?

The answer is because the mention of the word soul appears synonymous with the word God and the adoption of atheism is the hallmark of the non-superstitious and progressive new scientific clergy.

Soul does not necessarily infer a creator god. It infers a non-materialistic aspect to our existence. Yes, I know, but there is no scientific proof of a soul. That is because it is not an objective phenomenon. It is a subjective reality. It is the glue which serves as a bridge between the material and the spiritual dimensions.

Dissolving or incapacitating this bridge is what is unravelling through the guidance of people like Klaus Schwab of the W.E.O.

www.audible.com.au...

The intention of these particular minds is not to create A.I. constructs that are identical to people, it is to create people that are identical to A.I. The efforts have been underway for some time now and the original targets were of course children and the bombardment of their physical bodies with a multitude of vaccinations. But now the syringes are being aimed at every man woman and child and even the unborn.

We are not only one body. The physical body is just the grossest form and not to accept that is the new heresy. What Rudolph Steiner was saying is that the physical body needs to have an un-compromised etheric body in order to access the higher energetic realms of existence. Even scientific minds accept that even matter possesses a higher form of reality which is atomic.

Or second explanation, just roll up your sleeves for grandma. (huh, is "Grandma" what the insiders call Klaus as a pet name?) Go granny go granny go granny go!



posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Chalcedony

There is always a nasty little side in human affairs which needs to be stamped on quickly before it gets too powerful. These are the do-gooders which want to do things for your safety and benefit. It always ends up causing problems. Remember the in and out Lobotomies of the fifties? The electroconvulsive therapy?



posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Warning: This is long.

a reply to: Chalcedony

The beauty of precedent--even SCOTUS precedent--is that it can be overturned when the right mix of judges are gathered. Precedent is sometimes used only as a means of appealing to tradition, which in and of itself is a logical fallacy. We currently see it with the Jacobson ruling, and the Roe-v-Wade precedent is rearing its ugly head recently as well with the SCOTUS unwilling to stay Texas' abortion law before they properly hear arguments (which, IMO, is the proper thing to do).

But let's look at what Jacobson V. Maryland actually was at its foundation: it was a case that a man brought against a state that was mandating a vaccine that he did not want to get, the penalty being a fine and nothing more. I understand why some people are using that as precedent in the debate over COVID vaccine mandates, but it's not the same thing, and here's why...

First off, this was a legislated state law, not an edict or an executive order from the governor (and it certainly wasn't at the federal level). Second, Jacobson's punishment was to pay a fine of $5 (which would amount to about $152 today), not be threatened with his livelihood. Third, the ruling stated 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." Also, smallpox was a MUCH worse disease than COVID. And last, but certainly not least, is the fact that the polio vaccination was proven with longevity to be relatively safe and very effective. Let's look at these things, and only through the eyes of my opinion.
    1. As noted, there is a difference between legislated state law and things like executive orders or even demands from private industry. When people conflate these forms of mandates, they both cheapen the legislative process and improperly elevate the authority of other processes. Legislation comes with discussion and debate and public input, whereas executive orders and mandates from private industry generally do not. Such lack of these things should not be able to dictate whether or not we must get a medical treatment, and I would argue that the Jacobson ruling does not apply to executive orders and any other mandates or policies that are not arrived at through anything other than the legislative process.

    2. Why would it be constitutional for any legislative body to command people to do something or lost their livelihood/career? Where in the Constitution does it say that it's the job of the federal government--or even in any state consittution--to directly control one's ability to hold a job based solely on their medical history? In fact, here in California, we have what is known as the Unruh Civil Rights Act that expressly forbids any public or private entity to discriminate based on medical reasons, and I must assume that there is something similar in most states and at the federal level. So how is it okay for governments and any other entity to threaten us with either getting a medical treatment or we cannot be employed? This goes well past the concept of private-property rights.

    3. The terms "great danger" and "reasonable regulations" are subjective; there is no direct legal definition that gives a maximum or minimum official value. Therefore, one could easily argue that a virus that has a >99.5% survivability rate for the average human being on Earth (and a hospitalization rate in the single digits) does not meet the "great danger" metric. Smallpox was majorly different, as the mortality rate was about 30% if you got the major version. THAT demonstrates a decent need for some mandates; COVID-19 did not at the start, and certainly doesn't now with the newest and less severe variants.

    4. In 1902, the smallpox vaccination had been in circulation for 104 years, and variolation had been a thing for a couple hundreds of years prior. This had been a tried and proven method of dealing with smallpox, and once it was determined that the bovine version could give immunity without the side effects of variolation, by 1902 it was proven a very safe way to provide immunity to a quite deadly disease. COVID's vaccines, and even the technology behind them, has not been proven by hundreds of years of work, or even by decades of work--even 1/3 of the known vaccines right now are still only approved as experimental treatments. It does NOT make sense to that a government or any other entity should be allowed to force such a product into our bodies. And this is also why the federal statute governing EUAs says that we have the ability to refuse the vaccine...language that's currently being bastardized and spun for an agenda.

I have yet to find a coherent argument that convinces me that the Jacobson ruling applies to what is happening today. But hey, just because this is my opinion on the matter doesn't make it reality, unfortunately.
edit on 14-9-2021 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2021 @ 07:44 PM
link   
You mean like how it doesn’t work? That data?


originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: Chalcedony

Jacobson v. Massachusetts is (was) only applicable to state law. Biden's influence is over federal law which takes a back seat. His mandate only applies to and via the institutions that he has direct authority over.

Now, if you are a federal employee or your employer has more than 100 people, you are in murkier waters.

I do not see a significant amount of the states using this precedence to enforce a vaccine mandate. There would be a mass exodus.

I actually agree with a number of the points raised in the paper. It is incumbent upon leadership to invest the resources needed and develop a well thought plan to achieve the collective health goals of the nation.

That all being said, in my opinion we are not seeing a wide spread consideration to reference Jacob V. Mass. Additionally, I think there are far more nefarious things in the works to enforce compliance, like limiting your access to certain services or facilities if you refuse. There is a far greater possibility of this being implemented.

I still strongly recommend the vaccine, but if you have serious and legitimate concerns about it AND are willing to consider the medical data properly, then as the article highlights, it is incumbent upon the medical insititutions to help you reconcile your fears/mistrust.




posted on Sep, 15 2021 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Skepticape

Looks like the government is gonna have to work extra hard for you. Your fear and mistrust are very high.

Lets hope they can present information in a fashion that you can clearly understand and not be afraid of.


(post by Wide-Eyes removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 16 2021 @ 06:32 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
32

log in

join