![]() ![]() Such an arbitrary and oppressive manner as to justify the Granted or secured thereby is not infringed, or not exercised in Power is wholly within the discretion of the State so long as theĬonstitution of the United States is not contravened, or any right Under the Constitution, the mode or manner of exercising its police The exercise by the General Government of any power it possesses Police power of a State, must always yield in case of conflict with While a local regulation, even if based on the acknowledged Legislative enactment, as will protect the public health and Relating to matters completely within its territory, and notĪffecting the people of other States, established directly by ![]() The police power of a State embraces such reasonable regulations Under the statute as showing its scope and meaning in the opinion Of such evidence upon the ground of incompetency or immateriality Present a Federal question, this court may consider the rejection Involving the constitutionality of a state statute may not strictly While the exclusion of evidence in the state court in a case Than its letter, the spirit is to be collected chiefly from its While the spirit of the Constitution is to be respected not less The Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be impliedįrom, some express delegation in the instrument. Secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from The United States does not derive any of its substantive powersįrom the Preamble of the Constitution. The Supreme Court also denied an injunction to plaintiffs who were seeking to block a vaccine mandate for health care workers in Maine. This case became more prominent during the COVID-19 era, when it has been used to support shelter-in-place orders and mask mandates. The Supreme Court has continued to follow his reasoning. Since Harlan sought to balance the police power of the state with individual liberties, later judges would refer to his opinion to support either side of the debate. The Massachusetts law did not suggest that it would lead to this result, though, and the plaintiff did not show that he had a medical condition that made him unfit for vaccination. This would justify a court in shielding them from the enforcement of the law. 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.Īlthough he largely deferred to the legislature, Harlan noted that requiring a vaccination for certain people with certain health conditions would be cruel and inhumane. 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. 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 reasoned that individual liberty does not allow people to take actions regardless of the harm that they could cause to others. 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 was found guilty and fined, and the court ordered him held in custody until the fine was paid. The plaintiff in this case was an individual over 21 who refused to comply with the vaccination requirement and then faced a criminal complaint. (This was based on the increasing presence of smallpox in the city.) A certain physician was authorized to enforce the vaccination policy. The city of Cambridge adopted a regulation requiring all of its inhabitants who were not vaccinated against smallpox in the last five years to be vaccinated or revaccinated. The state imposed a $5 fine for people over 21 who violated this law, although it provided an exception for children with a doctor's certificate stating that they are not fit for vaccination. A Massachusetts law provided that the board of health of a city or town may require and enforce vaccination and revaccination of its inhabitants, while providing them with a way to get free vaccinations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |