The Scope of the State's Power in Matters Affecting Health: The Case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts 1905 The federal government does not have the explicit power to regulate public health so it bases its regulations on the federal government's exclusive ability to regulate interstate commerce. As an illustration of this power, there is a famous case - we will call it the fried chicken case - where the federal government was able to end a practice which forbid African Americans from buying food at a fried chicken restaurant a southern state in the 1960's. The Greyhound buses would stop at this restaurant for a break for the drivers. The federal government came in and said that the sale of chicken at the restaurant affected interstate commerce. Therefore, the federal government, and not the state, could control whether or not African Americans were allowed to eat there. States base their control over public health matters on their police powers. State police powers have been upheld in many public health situations from food inspection to health professional licensure, to mandatory vaccination, to fluoridation of water to restaurant inspections. The controversy brews when individual rights are at issue. When does the state have the authority to abridge one's individual or constitutional rights? The Courts weigh the purpose of the law against the individual's rights. Individual rights (also called civil rights) are not absolute. For example, the First Amendment to the US Constitution provides for freedom of speech. However, the courts have well established that while you have a right to free speech your right to free speech ends when that speech endangers others. In other words, you can't yell fire in a crowed theater. Mr. Jacobson believed that the scientific basis for vaccination was unsound and that he would suffer if he was vaccinated. The Massachusetts Supreme Court found the statute consistent with the Massachusetts state constitution, and Jacobson appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the issue of whether involuntary vaccination violated Jacobson's "'inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as seems to him best . . . " The Court bifurcated this question, first considering the right of the state to invade Jacobson's person by forcing him to submit to vaccination: This
In 1989, plaintiff Joseph Benning was cited for a violation of § 1256 for operating a motorcycle without wearing approved headgear in Caledonia County, Vermont. The statue states that “No person may operate or ride upon a motorcycle upon a highway unless he wears upon his head protective headgear reflectorized in part and of a type approved by the commissioner.1 The headgear shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap.1” The County State’s Attorney dismissed the citation because he deemed the statue vague and unable to establish the elements necessary to prosecute the crime.1 However, the plaintiffs filed suit against the state, seeking to have § 1256 declared unconstitutional.
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
The case came to the Supreme Court as the infamous Federal versus State battle for power. Once again the question plagued Marshall whether to support Federalism, or keep States’ rights alive.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
FACTS= On September 24, 1987, Keith Jacobson was indicted on charges of violating a provision of the Child Protection Act of 1984, which criminalizes the knowing receipt through mail of a “visual depiction [that] involves the use of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” On Feb 1984 Jacobson ordered two magazines in the mail of young boys. The magazines entitled Bare Boys 1 and Bare Boys 2, contained material of nude young boys from preteen to teens. Jacobson claimed that he want to order material of 18 year olds and up. However Jacobson’s receipt of the magazines was legal under both federal and Nebraska laws. Laws were constructed three months after the order was filled that banned all sexual depictions of children. Soon after the Gov. started setting up Jacobson by sending him applications to phony organizations that were illegally based.
The article “People Should Not Be Allowed to Refuse Vaccination” focuses on the dangers people who choose not to vaccinate are opening to others. The argument stems from the ease with which disease can spread through an unvaccinated community and the threat this poses to those who cannot vaccinate. Because of this danger the author of the article believes vaccination should not be left to choice, but required for the good of public safety.
The evolution of power gained by the Federal government can be seen in the McCuloch versus Maryland (1819) case. This case des...
The opposing argument serves as a perfect gateway to the topic of relationship between Federal and State government. In the United States, the Supremacy Clause serves...
1. In the Jackson’s case the District Court’s judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on the ground that termination of electric services did not constitute state action. The Metropolitan Edison Co. was a private entity and was not subject to the due process requirements of the 14th Amendment based on the State Action Doctrine. Moreoever, in the Jackson case, Metropolitan Edison Co. was a private entity that did not receive any federal funding. In the Simkin’s Case both the hospitals, Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital and Wesley Long had received millions of funds through the Hill Burton Act and hence they were subject to the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Therefore, subject to the protections from racial
The power the Supreme Court has today stems from the case of Marbury v. Madison: a hearing
In the face of a potential H2N2 epidemic, New Jersey’s Health Commissioner enforced a statute requiring the vaccination of all public health professionals, school-age children, pregnant mothers, and asthmatics. The law also prohibits people outside these high-risk groups from receiving inoculations voluntarily until these classes of people are fully vaccinated. The states, as governments of general jurisdiction, have police powers to pass legislation designed to protect society’s health and safety. As such, New Jersey needs no specifically enumerated constitutional power to enact such legislation. Indeed, the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts upheld a state law requiring mandatory immunization even in the face of concerns about vaccine safety and bodily integrity.
... Their Best Shot: A Law-Medicine Perspective On The Right To Religious Exemptions From Mandatory Vaccination." Case Western Reserve Law Review 63.3 (2013): 869-915. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Apr. 2014. .
In the case Buck vs Bell, 1927 “the United States Supreme Court ruled that a state statute 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 to the United States Constitution. The decision was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool. The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell.” What does forced sterilization have to do with mandatory vaccines? Everything! Both issues speak to whether we will allow a government to invade an individual’s body against their will. A government that leave people with no option other than compliance are treating citizens as slaves. Both speak to government inserting itself directly into family privacy, an invasion which has resonated through the generations. Both represent the most private parts of an individual’s body, mind, and soul. They are trampling on the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was a declaration of the boundaries of the power derived from the people. This is why it is important to allow exemptions to vaccine mandates, to keep our freedoms. Barbara Low Fisher, Co-founder of National Vaccine Information Center, stated, “If the State can tag, track down and force citizens against their will to be injected with biological products of known and unknown toxicity today, there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the State can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow”(Vaccines). Government should not intervein in personal medical
The question of what is the government’s role in regulating healthy and unhealthy behavior is one that would probably spark a debate every time. Originally, the role was to assist in regulating and ensure those that were unable to afford or obtain healthcare insurance for various reasons would be eligible for medical care. However, now it seems that politicians are not really concerned about what’s best for the citizens but woul...
Many people in America have a diet consisting of food that they do not know anything about. People with an unhealthy diet often become obese or overweight because they do not fully understand what is in the food they eat or how unhealthy it is while they are consuming it. The government then has to step in and create laws to help maintain healthy diets and to notify people of what is in the food they eat. The government should continue to regulate the diets of Americans because most of them do not want a change, don't know what they are consuming, and so that the government can help to stop obesity in the United States.