All I’m saying is that I want people to understand where the law is and so when you hear on mainstream media that under Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Constitution gives the government the right to do this, I want people in their minds to understand, that’s not true.
This is the U.S. Supreme Court case that the liberal media has been publicizing as support for vaccine mandates and the same U.S. Supreme Court case that Jeff Childers successfully used to support his argument against vaccine mandates.
Attorney Mitch Fine has looked at this case and does not believe that the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case applies to the COVID situation.
- The small pox vaccine at issue in the case was well-established. The COVID vaccines are still in testing even though they have been declared “approved.” Long-term safety of the vaccines is still not yet known. The technology of these so-called vaccines is entirely new.
- The case ultimately is about the right of a state to legislate vaccine mandates. The constitution of Massachusetts and its legislated law were taken into consideration in making the Supreme Court ruling. The current COVID mandates generally have not been legislated. If your state already has laws against mandatory vaccination, this case should help you to an easy win.
- Mitch Fine cites “The 4 Part Standard (per Gostin) that Determines the Reasonableness of a Vaccine Mandate”: 1) necessity, 2) reasonable means, 3) proportionality, and 4) harm avoidance.OSHA employees interviewed in a Del Bigtree video also do not seem to believe that the reasonableness standard is met.
While the Court held a $5 fine was reasonable for Henning Jacobson’s refusal of a smallpox vaccine, Jacobson never applied its 4 part standard to a non consensual injection of an experimental “vaccine.” For this reason, in this site’s section – Common Belief of the People, The Foundation of Jacobson v Massachusetts, this 4 part standard shall be applied to determine the reasonableness of forcibly mandating a novel genetic “vaccine.”
— Attorney Mitch Fine, VaccineLawfare.Com
Sources:
- February 20, 1905. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). U.S. Supreme Court.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/.
Judgment. - “JACOBSON V MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11 (1905): Constitutional Standard for Vaccine Mandates.” VaccineLawfare.Com.
https://www.vaccinelawfare.com/jacobson-v-massachusetts.
Law. - April 2005. Lawrence O. Gostin. “Jacobson v Massachusetts at 100 Years: Police Power and Civil Liberties in Tension.” American Journal of Public Health 95 (4): 576–81.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.055152.
Research Journal.
Lawrence O. Gostin is the Director for the Center for Law and the Public’s Health at John Hopkins – A Collaborating Center of the WHO and CDC and author of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security was one of the participants in Event 201. - October 21, 2021. SGT Report with Mitch Fine. LAWFARE: VAXX “MANDATE” IS WARFARE — Mitch Fine. SGT Report. Runtime: 52:58.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/DsrTYDhYxODX/.
Video. - May 31, 2022. Del Bigtree and Jefferey Jaxen. CENTURY-OLD RULING AFFECTS VAX MANDATES. The Highwire with Del Bigtree. Runtime: 13:01.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/DAbqqQC0Lx6A/.
Video.