4 ms·

The power was granted by Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197

The power was granted by Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/ > Harlan ruled that the vaccination law did not violate the 14th Amendment because the police power of the state may be allowed to constrain individual liberties through reasonable regulations when required to protect public safety. He reasoned that individual liberty does not allow people to take actions regardless of the harm that they could cause to others. Harlan felt that the plaintiff had failed to show that the vaccination law was arbitrary or oppressive, or not reasonably required for the safety of the public. He noted the increasing presence of smallpox, which prevented the plaintiff from convincingly asserting that the rule had no real or substantial relation to protecting public health and safety. Although the plaintiff presented evidence that some doctors believed that the smallpox vaccine was not effective and could cause further diseases, Harlan pointed out that the opposite view represents the common medical belief and is followed by more reputable doctors.

nathanaldensr 5y ago
"v. Massachusetts" and "v. United States Government" are two very, very different things. Are you aware of the differences?
powerslacker 5y ago
No it did not. First, that is a precedent, not a law. Second, that case would be interpreted as affirming the power of a state or municipality to implement and enforce a vaccination mandate, which is exactly what I said in my original comment. The federal government of the US has not been given that power through Jacobson v. Massachusetts and if it was so clear cut a precedent the supreme court wouldn't even bother hearing the case that is currently underway. EDIT: Getting downvoted so here's the primary holding. Read it for yourself. > A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection rights of adults if the law applies equally among adults.
ghoward 5y ago
That decision revolved around a one-time $150 fine (in today's money) and was used to justify forced sterilizations. And it was overturned later. And it was for the authority of a state, not the Federal Government. Not the same thing at all. And you also don't want to go down that road.

nathanaldensr 5y ago

"v. Massachusetts" and "v. United States Government" are two very, very different things. Are you aware of the differences?

powerslacker 5y ago

No it did not. First, that is a precedent, not a law. Second, that case would be interpreted as affirming the power of a state or municipality to implement and enforce a vaccination mandate, which is exactly what I said in my original comment. The federal government of the US has not been given that power through Jacobson v. Massachusetts and if it was so clear cut a precedent the supreme court wouldn't even bother hearing the case that is currently underway. EDIT: Getting downvoted so here's the primary holding. Read it for yourself. > A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection rights of adults if the law applies equally among adults.

ghoward 5y ago

That decision revolved around a one-time $150 fine (in today's money) and was used to justify forced sterilizations. And it was overturned later. And it was for the authority of a state, not the Federal Government. Not the same thing at all. And you also don't want to go down that road.