4 ms·
You should probably read the Jacobson decision more carefully [1], since you believe that it grants the government the right to mandate vaccines. The decision
by claytongulick 5y ago
You should probably read the Jacobson decision more carefully [1], since you believe that it grants the government the right to mandate vaccines.
The decision is much more narrow that you've been led to believe.
It specifically addresses state police powers, not federal powers.
It also doesn't mandate vaccination, it allows a small fine to be paid instead.
Also, according to a well known attorney I consulted (who has argued several cases before the Supreme Court) the Jacobson decision has been overturned countless times and is considered an awful ruling, the Healthcare equivalent of Dred Scott.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> since you believe that it grants the government the right to mandate vaccines Specifically avoided saying that. Stated simply, my point is there is positive precedent to the precursors to vaccine mandates, and reasonable ambiguity to the question per se. There is clear negative precedent for abortion. As such, comparing them is misleading. (Better analogy may be found in gun rights.)