Originally Posted by
Allegheny
U.S. Supreme Court
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)Jacobson v. Massachusetts
No. 70
Argued December 6, 1904
Decided February 20, 1905
197 U.S. 11
The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.
It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine.
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.
The Wisconsin State Supreme Court recently invalidated a shut down and mask order issued by the Governor, under his emergency powers provisions. The court stated that a governor's emergency powers cannot be unlimited and must be ratified by the legislature. In Jacobson v. Mass, it was a an act of the legislature, and the Supreme Court held it to be valid.
Buck vs Bell
argued in 1927 and citing Jacobson as a precedent. Also used by Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg to attempt to defend their actions.
And there is no way in H€|| it would be decided this way today:
The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck 'is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,' and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the Legislature and the specific findings of the Court obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, 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 U. S. 11, 25
S. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
Times change. The law changes. Anyone who doesn’t think mandatory involuntary sterilization (or mandatory immunization) wouldn’t have to be relitigated is a fool. Citing a precedent from when eugenics was prominent and when ‘separate but equal’ was the law of the land won’t stop it from happening.