Originally Posted by
Merle Haggard
Yes! Here we go. The constitutional amendment on vaccines. Right next to the one on masks and right after the one that forbids public health considerations.
At what point did EVERYTHING on Earth rise to the level of a constitutional issue? Freaking EVERYTHING!!!
It is until the courts say it isn’t.
Historically, In
1905 the Supreme Court addressed mandatory vaccinations in regard to smallpox in Jacobson v Massachusetts [2]. There the Court ruled that the police power of a state absolutely included reasonable regulations established by legislature to protect public health and safety [2]. Such regulations do not violate the 14th Amendment right to liberty because they fall within the many restraints to which every person is necessarily subjected for the common good [3]. Real liberty for all cannot exist if each individual is allowed to act without regard to the injury that his or her actions might cause others; liberty is constrained by law. The Court went on to determine in Jacobson that a state may require vaccination if the board of health deems it necessary for public health or safety.
but that’s a115 year old law, predating even the 1927 Bell vs Buck decision allowing states to order the sterilization of epileptics, feeble-minded, and other societal undesirables, which would never survive scrutiny today. Increasingly, the SCOTUS has required a far higher standard, that of the LEAST RESTRICTIVE measures necessary to achieve the legitimate government purposes.
From the Journal of Constitutional Law:
The three main standards of review track the responses to these three questions. Thus, under minimum rationality review, the legisla- tion only has to be rationally related to legitimate government inter- ests, and not impose irrational burdens on individuals." Under in- termediate review, the legislation must be substantially related to advancing important or substantial governmental interests, and not be substantially more burdensome than necessary to advance these interests.17 Under strict scrutiny, the statute must directly advance compelling governmental interests and be the least restrictive effec- tive means of doing so.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cg...96&context=jcl
The issue that will be litigated in our litigious society is not whether or not there is a government interest in public health or ending an epidemic - that has long been established - but whether or not MANDATORY immunization is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that. That is always arguable but even more so with vaccinating in an attempt to achieve herd immunity where looking rationally - the first few individuals being immunized gain exceptional benefit (being susceptibles in an environment of massive risk of exposure) compared to the final few individuals who derive very little benefit (since they are largely surrounded by already vaccinated people and hence at low risk.)
it’s the old “free rider” issue that unions have to deal with in ‘right to work’ states and - yes, in this day and age - there is little doubt that it’ll go all the way to the Supreme Court.