Jacobson vs. Massachusetts).
Jacobson believed that the scientific basis for vaccination was unsound and that he would suffer if he was vaccinated. 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 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."' (at 26)
The Court interpreted the social contract where the individual must give up some personal freedom in exchange for the benefits of being in a civilized society. Jacobson sought to enjoy the benefit of his neighbors being vaccinated without personally accepting the risks inherent in vaccination. The Court rejected Jacobson's claim which it viewed as an attempt to be a free-rider on society.
The Court next considered Jacobson's right to contest the scientific basis of the Massachusetts vaccination requirement. Accepting that some reasonable people still questioned the efficacy of vaccination, the Court nonetheless found that it was within the legislature's prerogative to adopt one from many conflicting views on a scientific issue. The Court ruled that the state may choose scientifically questionable grounds for vaccination but the right of the individual to refuse the government is not possible.
In addition, as reported by CNS News earlier this month, a health-care rationing bill approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee called The Affordable Health Choices Act, will fund the creation of state “intervention” teams that will carry out home visits in order to check that both children and adults have been vaccinated and also provide “provision of immunizations.”
“Home visits" will be made by the state and will send representatives to “implement interventions” in private homes designed “to improve immunization coverage of children.”
By placing combat troops amongst Americans these type of measures will be enforced. Americans, for example, who opposed the FEMA occupation of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, had their weapons seized.
And recently, the U.S. Northern Command (Northcom) was assigned its own fighting unit-–the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, which had been fighting in Iraq for five years before that. The U.S. will be confronting combat veterans on the streets and homes of America. In violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, and out of keeping with one of the conditions sparking the American Revolution, troops will be deployed amongst civilians. As reported on this blog for some time, soldiers have been appearing at the Boston Marathon, at the Kentucky Derby, at the last Inauguration, and in routine murder investigations. This desensitization to un-American activities, has conditioned Americans to accept combat troops on the streets and highways as a part of everyday life.
The question to consider is why is it that first-responders, police, National Guard, Homeland Security, the FBI, and all ordinary and typical American means are now exceeded by placing even combat-hardened military troops to handle Americans? What is the government expecting? Why do Americans require such man-handling as is typical of banana republics and countries that are collapsing?
This development is absolutely unprecedented in American history when troops were called up under only the most extreme conditions such as during the Civil Rights struggle, war demonstrations, and the occupation of the South after the Civil War.
HR 8791 Homeland Preparedness Bill:
Rep-PA. John Haller introduces bill bringing martial law to the U.S.
Posts
