Thank you for the RT, @JennaEllisEsq, but I'm not sure my tweet means what you think it means. 1/9
As you know, Jacobson v. MA (1905) asked whether a law allowing cities to require smallpox vaccinations is constitutional.
The Supreme Court said yes by a 7-2 vote. 2/9 oyez.org/cases/1900-194…
The Supreme Court said yes by a 7-2 vote. 2/9 oyez.org/cases/1900-194…
Key line: "It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature...to determine...whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health." 3/9
Also: "If the mode adopted...for the protection of its local communities against smallpox proved to be distressing, inconvenient or objectionable to some...the answer is that it was the duty of the constituted authorities primarily..." 4/9
"...to keep in view the welfare, comfort and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few."
That last idea is perfectly on-point to America's current public-health emergency. 5/9
That last idea is perfectly on-point to America's current public-health emergency. 5/9
To emphasize: it is for states and localities to decide what measures are necessary to protect the public health—even if some people are distressed or inconvenienced by those measures. 6/9
That means states have wide discretion to decide how to handle the COVID-19 pandemic to protect the health and the lives of their citizens. They also get to decide which businesses count as "essential" in carving out exceptions to closure orders. 7/9
The implication of your pinned tweet seems to be that these public-health measures violate purportedly "essential" constitutional rights.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts says otherwise. 8/9
Jacobson v. Massachusetts says otherwise. 8/9
In sum, your tweet is premised on a faulty reading of the Constitution.
It also feeds dangerous misperceptions about the legal status of rational, scientifically appropriate policies many states have adopted to confront an unprecedented threat. 9/9 END
It also feeds dangerous misperceptions about the legal status of rational, scientifically appropriate policies many states have adopted to confront an unprecedented threat. 9/9 END
And here is how President Trump's senior legal adviser responded to my critique of her implicit attack on the constitutionality of public-health measures to combat COVID-19. 
After blocking me she criticized "Leftist Triggered Twitter" for not "actually discussing things".
P.S. Here is her pinned tweet I was addressing in my thread.
