When it comes to mandatory vaccination, Alan Dershowitz is dead-wrong on the law and Constitution
Mark Crispin Miller
Vaccine Truth vs Alan Dershowitz: Law and Science Is On Our Side,
Part 2
POSTED BY: VAXXTERADMIN2 05/27/2020
By John Jones, JD, PhD, Vaxxter contributor (Part 1 here)
More about Jacobson and the Law
As a former professor of constitutional law, I have read nearly all the case law on vaccination policies and practices in the United States. As a person who has analyzed the history and science of vaccines from the 18th century to the present, I insist that Dershowitz (2020), Matthews (2020), and all the other vaccine zealots are completely wrong. As noted above from Jacobson, there is no legal opinion that supports the idea that the government can compel injections, and certainly, nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution addresses the idea.
Before I explain in more detail about the holding of Jacobson, let me recount the tangible result of the case:
Mr. Henning Jacobson was neither vaccinated, nor jailed.
After his final appeal was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, there was no outbreak at the time and it had been three years since health officials in Boston had declared a smallpox epidemic in 1902, Jacobson paid a one-time fine of $5. This was a sizable sum for the day; it was roughly 50% of the average weekly income of a working-class laborer. See Willrich (2011), chapter 8.
Let that sink in: During an era of a supposedly highly contagious rate by a deadly disease, despite an order from the local health board for mandatory vaccination, people could just pay a fine and go about their business. No lockdown, no quarantine.
Even though the ruling against him, the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that Jacobson could be forced to receive the shot. Nor did the court rule that Jacobson could be detained, indefinitely.
I have edited and parsed the exact text of the holding in Jacobson as follows:
“The highest court of Massachusetts, not having held that the compulsory vaccination law … establishes the absolute rule, that an adult must be vaccinated, even if: (i) he is [unfit] at the time; or (ii) [the] 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 [does not violate] the Fourteenth Amendment.” Jacobson at 12.
Near the end of his opinion, Harlan added a significant caveat. He explained that: (A) vaccination laws are never to be applied to all people regardless of circumstance; and (B) Courts may issue injunctions to prevent harm or injury that could be caused by a vaccine. As demonstrated by his declarations, Prof. Dershowitz is either woefully ignorant of the full opinion or cannot comprehend the breadth of the following:
“It is easy, for instance, to suppose the case of an adult [for whom] vaccination in a particular condition of his health or body, would be cruel and inhuman…We are not to be understood as holding that the statute was intended to be applied to such a case, or … that the judiciary [could not] interfere and protect the health and life of the individual concerned.” (Jacobson at 38-39).
I think that we can best paraphrase the rule from Jacobson like this:
‘A local jurisdiction may impose a fine upon any fit adult, who refuses a free vaccine, administered by the government, when there is an epidemic, unless, the person can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are likely to be harmed by the shot.’
Click on the link for the rest.