Forced Vaccines Upheld by the Supreme Court in 1905 in Jacobson v. Massachusetts -- Overrides Individual Constitutional Rights

so the court's rule still stands, meaning you'll have to be vaccinated if they decide so

tremendous, MAGA

The Court's decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state.

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

if you are vaccinated, you should NOT fear of those who are not vaccinated and are supposed to die anyway

your body, your choice

every each one of us should have that free wil

you can vaccinate again smallpox because it's bacteria.. yo can't vaccinate against virus.


therefore case is not the same and precedent doesn't apply.

Um... smallpox is a virus, not a bacteria.
[link to www.cdc.gov (secure)]

Nevertheless, it doesn't matter.

Here's the entire court's opinion:
[link to supreme.justia.com (secure)]

We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best, and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that

"persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State, of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made so far as natural persons are concerned."

Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 95 U. S. 471; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 169 U. S. 628, 169 U. S. 629; Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington R.R., 27 Vermont 140, 148. In Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 137 U. S. 89, we said:

"The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty.

But the 2nd Amendment overrides all unconstitutional laws.

NO LAW MADE BY HUMAN OR OTHERWISE OVERRIDES YOUR RIGHT TO SAY NO.

It has already been proven that vaccines spread disease. Big Pharma loves it and they could give a shit about you.

The Supreme Court has had little to say about state power to override people’s liberty during epidemics. The most helpful case is from back in 1905 during the smallpox epidemic, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In that case, a pastor argued that a mandatory smallpox vaccination violated his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court sided with Massachusetts but framed its decision carefully.

The Court acknowledged that “the liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment . . . consists, in part, in the right of a person ‘to live and work where he will.’" But it added: “in every well-ordered society . . . 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.”

Are ‘Stay At Home’ Orders Constitutional? - Forbes:
[link to www.forbes.com (secure)]

I don't agree with forcing injections on anyone but my opinion nor yours do not count. They already have THE case to force this is why I am here -- to inform everyone if that should happen. Do you want to shoot the messenger? Seems so.

This still can not override the 2nd amendment.

Smallpox is a highly contagious and deadly disease caused by the variola virus. It was estimated to have infected 300 million people in the 20th Century before it became the only human infectious disease ever to be completely eradicated

My body, my choice.

Smallpox was eradicated but many countries keep it on ice as a bioweapon. When they're ready to exterminate all of us & head to their luxury bunkers in New Zealand, that'll be one of the nightmares they'll unleash.

The point as MSM outlets and other sites have pointed out with the Jacobson case, is that when society is in "danger," states can impose things that go against individual liberties. This also pertains to enforcing mandatory masks, stay at home orders (that I linked to above) etc.

We just have to take back and exercise our rights!

Individuals must never sacrifice themselves involuntarily to the collective!

You, like the Elite do not believe in God and that will be both of your downfalls.

God has a written, you can not change it or stop it(but the Elite will try to and fail).
God's power is Supreme.
No matter what they plot or plan it will not work unless the Lord allows it. But instead it will bring destruction upon them. So have Faith, for the Lord God Rules and no one is superior to him.

you know what that means, IF there will be a large enough critical mass, revolution is inevitable

only question is, how much of sheep is out there ready for slaughter and how many knights remaining

also this court rule is shady, because it means they, the elites can push their agenda and eliminate the enemies in their eyes, the so called dissidents

you will never know for sure what they are you injecting with

another point i'd like to make is, either way they'll find a way to vaccinate you, if you won't comply, then they'll already come up with extortion methods, like if you won't get vaccinated, you won't be entitled to the same rights as those who have been, and won't be able to provide bread for your family, won't be able to find a job, girlfriend, go to the stores, hang out with other people, you'll be SOCIALLY ELIMINATED, an outcast

again a reason for revolution

trust the plan

Is it really in the interest of the common good to vaccinate everyone? What if a catastrophic mistake is made in a vaccine that is not revealed through short-term efficacy and safety studies? Oops.

Even for a highly contagious bug like coronavirus, only 80% of the population has to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Seems to me there should be plenty of room for people who wish to abstain to do so. And, if more than 20% wish to abstain then perhaps we need to reconsider what is in the interest of the common good.

Good point. That happened with the Swine Flu 1976ish debacle. Someone not too long ago posted a link to a 60 minutes video that exposed what can happen (that you described). Maybe someone can repost that video link.

NO COURT CAN OVERRULE THE CONSTITUTION. PERIOD. NO LEGISLATURE CAN OVERRULE THE CONSTITUTION. WE HAVE RIGHTS
OR WE DONT. PERIOD.

Don't let the "legalese" throw you... Legalese is a language first recognized in 1914, that sounds like English, but it is not.

A natural person is not, and can not be a man.... however, a man can volunteer to be a natural person.

I agree. It could play out just like you described. Something else that I would like to add about Justice John Marshall Harlan:

"John Marshall Harlan was an American lawyer and politician who served as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. He is often called "The Great Dissenter" due to his many dissents in cases that restricted civil liberties, including the Civil Rights Cases and Plessy v. Ferguson."

It just goes to show how one person can have tremendous powers on generations of people through history with court "opinions." I've seen this case refereced in many states -- Texas (abortions), etc. His "opinion" has had everlasting effects in many things for over a hundred years now.

Precedence is not set in stone and irreversible. It is a decision made by predecessor courts the Justices use to settle arguments where the underlying information, explanation or science has not changed significantly enough to change the arguments or the outcome.

If the Court deems there is enough new evidence to warrant new arguments they will choose to hear the new case, if not they would choose not to take up the case and everyone would conclude precedence was the answer.

However, this is not always the case. Many times the Court does not want to open that can of worms and be remembered as making law from the bench. Abortion is one of those issues the Court does not want to review without groundbreaking evidence.

Not when society is in "danger." Have you not read the Supreme Court opinion?

Again... here it is: "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.”

Bingo. That's the problem and has been for over 100 years. Texas just used this Jacobson case in an abortion case recently. It's referenced quite heavily in many many others as well.

Here's the court using the Jacobson case recently in Texas:

The 115-year-old Supreme Court opinion that could determine rights during a pandemic:
[link to www.cnn.com (secure)]

"Jacobson instructs that all constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted to combat a public health emergency," wrote Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan for the majority.

guess 99% of Americans weren't aware of the fact OP posted

pin it

funny since the supreme court's only role is supposed to be determing whether a law or ruling is constitutional or not. yes or no. in this case it is not constitutional. yet the SC throughtout their history, especially 20th century onward, have proven they are just another corrupt, political body who often side with authoritarians and corporations or their personal agendas. thomas jefferson was against the formation of the SC in the constitution, now for obvious reasons.

great points afterall there is still hope for USA

How does one define "reasonably"?
* Is it reasonable to violate someone's body against their will?
* Is it reasonable to violate everyone's privacy via invasive testing and tracking?
* Is it reasonable to require people to stay at home until the economy that sustains public welfare breaks?
* Is it reasonable to encourage people to snitch on those not abiding by "reasonable" measures?
* Is it reasonable to force people to accept digital certificates proving they do not pose a hazard to public welfare?

I think we all know the answer to these questions. George Carlin once said, "you have no rights, you have privileges".