Mothering Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,512 Posts
Well, gee. It would be a shame to see all of that unused police power go to waste, wouldn't it? Why not use it because, um, because we can? :irked

Here's a competing analysis on the Jacobson decision and where it fits into modern jurisprudence. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,150 Posts
I suspect an article looking at things from that angle would not be published today. That was 2005, 10 years ago, and there is a huge push to move vaccinations outside of individual rights. Which is scary. It is an invasive medical procedure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,512 Posts
They wouldn't be published, but the information is still very much relevant and worth citing to legislators who haven't already decided what their belief$ are. We've seen a lot of SC cases since 1905 that uphold individual civil liberties and call into question much of the basis for Jacobson.

Here is Justice Harlan's majority opinion.
There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution. But it is equally true 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.2(p29)
100% of the time, when a right or freedom is taken away, this is the rationale. 100% of the time. Select any world dictator and look up his/her speeches, and there will be some fear-mongering followed by an appeal to "safety." Or just look up a horrible policy in a supposed "free democracy," like the "Patriot" Act in the U.S., and you'll see the same thing.

The scary thing that the article details is that the court never actually defined what the boundaries were. Instead, they're open to interpretation and arbitrariness. This allowed for the mandatory, state-enforced sterilization of not just Carrie Buck, but 60,000 other women before 1978.

Such cases diluted the reasons that justified restrictions on personal liberty. The Court did not always say that danger meant an immediate threat to the public at large, and it accepted a broader range of means as reasonable.
The Court then faced the problem of deciding how constitutional provisions limited government action. The Bill of Rights describes individual rights in broad terms, such as freedom of speech and due process of law. In a democracy that has no official religion or ideology, any interpretation of such abstract concepts could be attacked as merely the justices’ personal philosophy.67 Yet, if they upheld all laws that are purported to serve the common good, such as involuntary sterilization, government power would be unlimited—the definition of tyranny
You see, these pro-vax-assault people who get all gleeful when citing Jacobson don't get that their own rights may one day be in danger, too.

"Privilege is when you think something doesn't affect you because it doesn't affect you personally." -Unknown
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top