Originally Posted by 360view
Are the measures taken during smallpox and COVID-19 epidemic constitutional, according to past Supreme Court decisions?

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-05-smallpox-defeated-wasnt-easy-relevant.html

Sample quote

What role did the U.S. Supreme Court play?

Willrich: In 1905 the Court ruled on the constitutionality of compulsory vaccination measures in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts. In upholding the legitimacy of compulsory vaccination, the Supreme Court compared the right to enact public health measures during an epidemic to the right of a government, any government, to defend its people from a military invasion. And they compared the right to compel individuals to be vaccinated, whether they wanted to or not, to the power to conscript the people in order to raise an army. These are very strong statements of public health authority.

However, the Court emphasized that these measures must not be arbitrary and unreasonable, that they must address legitimate public health concerns, and that in some extreme cases public health regulations might be "so arbitrary and oppressive" as to justify judicial review. That is an important standard, and Jacobson remains the major case today in public health law, more than a century later.

End quote


Fighting a new highly contagious deadly makes virus "arbitrary" an elusive label here from a legal standpoint IMO. The "better be safe then sorry" thinking itself is arbitrary. A work around could be, a day by day declaration of medical restrictions or requirements. Hard to believe a 24 hr declared requirement, would be arbitrary or unreasonable. A 24hr constantly repeating cycle would be rather cumbersome for business and others, when trying to make any future plans, but the SC did not rule on the need to not be cumbersome from what I read above. twocents


Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.