This piece is an informative discussion of case law in the United States as it pertains to medical freedom, civil liberties, mandatory vaccinations, eugenics case law, and legislation. This post is written due to the judgement handed out in Roman Catholic Diocese v Cuomo that I just wrote about. (I've added photos to break the text up in this post a bit and make it more palatable)
Throughout the 2020 "pandemic", courts have heard several civil liberties cases. I am sure this needs no explanation, but the severe restrictions on all areas of life has led to several litigations. Relying repeatedly on the case of Jacobson v Massachusetts (1905) applicants were continuously shut down.
So let's explore what Jacobson v Massachusetts (1905) is about, why it is so crucial and important, and what cases it has influenced and where we now stand, due to the judgement handed down in Roman Catholic Diocese v Cuomo.
What's Jacobson v Massachusetts (1905)?
Courts rely heavily on this case when individual liberties and constitutional rights are at odds with state and government enforcements/statutes etc.
Without getting into the entirety of mandatory vaccination case law and discussions, the long and short of it is that Jacobson is a landmark case in regards to civil liberties and state authority.
The case was about a man, Jacobson, who sued the state over mandatory vaccinations when the smallpox "epidemic" apparently broke out in Massachusetts. He had experienced very negative effects as a result of a previous vaccination (or previous ones, I don't remember if it was one or several vaccines he had a bad reaction to), but the point is himself and his son had been very negatively affected as a result of vaccinations.
Therefore, when Massachusetts mandated vaccines to help "eradicate smallpox" he did not want to be forced to take them. He was worried about the injections giving him very negative effects, and also was apparently worried that, owing to some genetic disposition, he believed himself and his son to be particularly susceptible to bad reactions from a smallpox vaccine.
He presented a great deal of evidence and medical testimony showing the harms and ineffectiveness of the smallpox vaccine, but, in essence, this "evidence" was disregarded for supposedly being "greater in number than in value". Well.....moving on.
Jacobson claimed that it was an infringement of his personal liberties to be subjected to mandatory vaccinations and that no person should be subjected to imprisonment or fines if they refuse vaccinations for any reason.
Well the long and short of it is that the court held in favour of the state, citing, (as all alibis of fascism will) the age old excuse of "the common good". The court held that there was no violation of the 14th amendment: Jacobson stands for the proposition that government can take significant measures for public health. While it doesn't give a free pass to regulation, and there has to be a real or substantial relation between problem and solution, it is still commonly and woodenly cited to remove civil liberties in the face of state power.
So, if you don't know, your entire life is simply dictated by however some guy in a gown feels that day. All rulings are subjective interpretations of "law" and circumstances by supposed "experts". Sometimes, interpretations of previous cases give rise to adequate and substantive civil liberties; however, often times, individual and civil liberties are quite happily trodden on by the state and "judicious" people in positions of "authority". AKA - judges.
(Can you see how easy it is for a transcendentalist to become wholly disillusioned studying law?)
What does all this mean?
Why should I care about Jacobson v Massachusets?
It means that courts rely heavily on Jacobson, a case from over a hundred years ago, to either approve of state and police power, over the individual liberties of people and their constitutional rights, or, to place caveats on state regulations and their application.
More often than not, Jacobson is used to undermine civil liberties and give power to the state. Indeed, as the "pandemic" broke out, CNN wrote an article titled "The 115-year-old Supreme Court opinion that could determine rights during a pandemic". That headline really tells you all you need to know about power plays, constitutional rights, and judgements.
So what has been Jacobson's legacy and application throughout history? Eugenics, state power, and Buck v Bell:
You may not know this but validly standing eugenics laws and practices continue to this day. For example, in 2013, it was reported that 148 female prisoners in two California prisons were sterilized between 2006 and 2010 in a supposedly voluntary program, but it was determined that the prisoners did not give consent to the procedures. In September 2014, California enacted Bill SB1135 that bans sterilization in correctional facilities, unless the procedure is required to save an inmate's life.
Jacobson was used in the landmark case on eugenics: Buck v Bell. If you want to read more about this you can read the history of the case on wikipedia for ease of access to a general site that everyone will know about. But in short: "the Court ruled that a state statute - the Virginia Sterlization Act of 1924 - permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell."
Imagine - using Jacobson to further impose fascism and medical tyranny on people that other people deem to be "unfit". Who'da thunk it eh!?
So Jacobson really has a pretty grim history of granting and affirming state power more than it does being used to place any sort of caveats on it. So, how valid really are your constitutional rights when supposed "public welfare" is such a quick and easy alibi to circumvent them?
"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, 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."
Yeah.....that's lovely. That sounds great. Thank you. Turns out though Buck had actually been raped and her counsel purposefully lost the case. So....guess "Holmes"-boy here doesn't really know his ass from his teeth. This is a long story, and there's apparently even been TV shows or a movie made out of it - but the point is, it's obvious that no one looks out for the little guy. Judges quote Jacobson readily and easily to side with the state and enforce its authority. And people really, truly believe that the system exists to help them!
Did you know, Buck v Bell was used by Nazis to defend their behaviour? A brief touch on eugenics laws and application
"Buck v. Bell legitimized eugenic sterilization laws in the United States as a whole. While many states already had sterilization laws on their books, their use was erratic and effects practically non-existent in every state except for California. After Buck v. Bell, dozens of states added new sterilization statutes, or updated their constitutionally non-functional ones already enacted, with statutes that more closely mirrored the Virginia statute upheld by the Court."
The Virginia statute - The Sterilization Act of 1924 - which the ruling of Buck v. Bell supported, was designed in part by the eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin, (left) superintendent of Charles Benedict Davenport's Eugenics Record Office in New York. Laughlin conducted studies and came to the conclusion that there needed to be a "Model Law" based upon the approved Virginia Statute, that states could adopt in order to circumvent the constitution and enforce sterilisation on all those that, people like this lovely Laughlin here on the left would think, are unfit to be a part of our society. Great to know someone cares and decides who gets to live and die :)
Well, guess what: Hitler closely modeled his Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring on Laughlin's "Model Law". The Nazis and Third Reich held Laughlin in such high regard that they arranged for him to receive an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936. At the Nuremberg trials after World War II, Nazi doctors explicitly cited Holmes's opinion in Buck v. Bell as part of their defense.
So let's get on to the application of Jacobson during the "pandemic" (2020/2021....)
Texas Ban on abortions
Once again - the theme repeats - the alibi of tyrants (Albert Camus): THE COMMON GOOD. THE GREATER GOOD. Cue eye roll if you, like me, are not interested in their Hitleresque version of the "common good".
In the first decision of its kind during the "pandemic", the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals (which traditionally rules against abortion rights.....) relied completely on Jacobson 1905 to permit the Texas ban on abortion clinics. Affirming that abortions during the pandemic were, apparently, non-essential medical services. (Rather than engage in the anger I feel about this ruling, I will continue):
The panel rejected arguments regarding the right to abortion ingrained by the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade (and subsequent rulings). "Jacobson instructs that all constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted to combat a public health emergency," Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan
Actually, Judge Kyle Duncan, you may be intersted to know that Jacobson doesn't instruct that at all. And as you can see below, these rulings are now, as of January 25th, 2021, voided by the Supreme Court.
Do you see how easily and readily Jacobson is relied upon and used for wrong? The above case (Texas abortion judgement by 5th circuit) was cited multiple times across the country throughout 2020, in similar litigation, effectively continuously denying abortion rights based on one uber strict interpretation of a one hundred year old case. Hundreds of thousands of lives negatively affected because of the interpretation of some guys in a gown. It's insane right? Especially when cases are interpreted in this religiously strict way that trods all over civil rights.
So where is the supreme law of the land? The constitution? Or the interpretation of the constitution by a select few?
You should know that the Supreme Court vacated these rulings - January 2021:
On Monday January 25th 2021, this horrible case law, and ridiculous interpretation of Jacobson, was removed from the books. The Supreme Court handed a victory to advocates of abortion rights: "In a brief order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and vacated the 5th Circuit's ruling."
To vacate a ruling means to cancel/void it, and it no longer applies. So no longer can anyone cite the 5th circuit's decision to uphold the Texas state's ban on abortions during a "pandemic". It is no longer considered good law and has been removed by the Supreme Court.
Rather than continue to explore the application of Jacobson in case law, let's get straight to the core of the supreme court's interpretation of it, so I can bring it around to just how important the ruling in Roman Diocese was.
Supreme Court Jacobson application during "pandemic"
1. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom
On May 29, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its first Covid-19–related decision in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. In this case, California had limits on attendance at places of worship. In a 5-to-4 vote, the court declined to block California’s limit on attendance at places of worship.
Although the majority did not issue an opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, in a concurring opinion, emphasized the heavy burden facing litigants who seek emergency relief from the Court. He further noted that the state had imposed similar restrictions on secular gatherings. Quoting Jacobson, he added that the Constitution “principally entrusts ‘the safety and the health of the people’ to the politically accountable officials of the States.”
In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that California’s policy discriminated against religious services by treating them differently from many secular activities.
2. Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak
On July 24, 2020, the Court revisited Covid-19–related restrictions on religious worship in Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak. Once again, without an opinion, the Court denied an emergency petition by a 5-to-4 vote.
In pointed dissents, Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh argued that the Nevada order in question discriminated against religion by treating casinos more favorably than places of worship. Alito also questioned Jacobson’s relevance to free-exercise claims, noting that it was not a First Amendment case.
3. Significance of Roman Diocese in the face of previous Supreme Court reliance on Jacobson
While this is explained in my previous post, here is the point of the deviation in rulings in the wake of the judgement handed out in Roman Diocese. Finally, we see common sense and an adhesion to the Constitution. Why? Because Ginsberg died and Amy Coney Barrett replaced her. Thank god for that.
In the wake of the Roman Diocese ruling, Jacobson kind of hits the backseat. This is a big deal. First, the difference between Jacobson is marked, when already, Justice Alito is "questioning Jacobson’s relevance to free-exercise claims, noting that it was not a First Amendment case." (Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, above)
Because of the language and reasonings stated by the judges to bar state power in this instance, we may be seeing a new direction:
Justice Gorsuch, in the concurrence: "Gorsuch derided New York and other unnamed states for treating religious worship more harshly than other activities. He also criticized Roberts’s South Bay opinion for relying on Jacobson, which he called a “modest” decision. Gorsuch added, “things never go well” when the Court tries to “stay out of the way in times of crisis.”
The overriding precedence of Jacobson, and its long standing history of supporting mandatory vaccinations, mandatory sterilizations, medical tyranny, and being an inspiration for Nazis - is being dethroned.
In Roman Diocese, the Supreme Court sets a firm message "The constitution can not be put away and forgotten". They are ensuring that these "measures" do not serve as a pretext for discriminating against vulnerable people and quashing protected liberties.
The Court’s approach in Roman Catholic Diocese devalues federalism and public health. This is a good thing: We want to strip federal and state power. The case makes it difficult for states to rely on "science" (which we know is being skewed) and craft fine-tuned measures in response to local conditions.
Already, the case’s effects have been felt. In December, the Court ordered a lower court to reconsider its rejection of a challenge to a California regulation that affects in-person worship. As I just wrote about above, they also ordered the rejection of the 5th circuits ruling on the ban on abortions (thankfully)**(read note on abortion below)
Beyond the pandemic, Roman Catholic Diocese’s most important legacy may be the dethroning of Jacobson. Gorsuch is correct that Jacobson was not a free-exercise case and does not control such claims. For more than 115 years, Jacobson has been the key precedent supporting vaccine mandates and other public health laws. It has also served as a wooden, unmoving block on individual liberty under the pretence of the common good and the supposed urgency and "importance" of public health evidence. Jacobson has stood for the fact that “real liberty” cannot exist in the absence of "reasonable restraints" (medical tyranny) to "protect the public’s health" (subvert free will). With Jacobson apparently sidelined, the future of many public health laws, including and especially vaccine mandates, appears perilous. This is something we really need to be hopeful about. Roman Diocese could well become a new standard for civil rights and state power.
Thanks for reading if you made it this far. you will have definitely gained a big insight into case law, constitutional rights, civil liberties, and case history. Hope you have enjoyed reading this. if you have, feel free to share or recommend the blog.
**A note on abortion: everyone has different views on this, and some people may have different views on the "Planned Parenthood" organisation. I do not condone that organisation, and I don't care for it. I don't care about them. All I know, is that every human being on this planet should have an unencumbered choice with what they do to their body. From abortions to vaccines to anything at all. I believe every woman should have nonnegotiable access to abortions. End of story, the abortion "debate" really isn't a debate at all. You can have whatever personal view you want on abortion, you can hate women who have them, it doesn't matter to me, thats fine. But people just need to understand the basic fact that no human being on this earth should ever be subject to another person's personal beliefs and opinions. Without getting into huge specifics, let's at least leave it at, never ever should any human being, ever, be forcibly vaccinated, be coerced into vaccination, be forced to an abortion, or forced to NOT undergo one. Each human being's body is sovereign, especially when it comes to medical interventions on their person.
Some info and source links
Comentarios