Are Mandatory Vaccine Laws Protected by the Constitution?

By Dr. John Reizer

Many Americans have been recently asking the question: Are mandatory vaccine laws protected by the Constitution? If you type this question into a search engine on the Internet, you are going to be inundated with a plethora of legal opinions that thoroughly discuss the subject. The majority of the views will tell you that the federal government has a constitutional right to exercise mandatory vaccine laws.

The legal opinions referenced above are mostly made and influenced by a case that was decided by the SCOTUS on February 20, 1905, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that an individual’s liberty is not absolute and subject to police powers.

The decision handed down stated, “in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” and that “[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

The court also ruled that mandatory vaccinations are not arbitrary or oppressive so long as they do not “go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public.”

Now, I want to preface my remarks about this case by stating I am not a lawyer (although I do have an online Juris Doctorate that I worked really hard on many years ago), and I am not an expert on legal issues and have never pretended to be one. But strictly from a layperson’s perspective, I have to write that I agree with Robert F. Kennedy’s position that mandatory vaccine laws are unconstitutional.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts was heard and decided by the SCOTUS in 1905. That’s a long time ago, and there’s been a lot of new information uncovered about vaccines and the devastating effects they have on human physiology. A new argument could and should be laid out to retest and reverse this old and antiquated legal decision.

I believe that Jacobson v. Massachusetts could be successfully challenged and overturned in light of some of the new, damaging evidence that has been turned up about the vaccine industry. There are over 150 chronic diseases that the FDA has attributed to vaccinations, and there is a specialized National Vaccine Injury Compensation Court that was expressly set aside to hear vaccine injury cases and limit their awards to $250,000 to protect the big pharma industry. In addition to this, the soon to be released Covid-19 vaccine will have complete liability immunity from any injuries the product might potentially inflict on human lives.

In my opinion, Jacobson v. Massachusetts would yield a much different decision if heard in the year 2020. And I have spoken with a few lawyer friends who unequivocally agree with me. The minority dissenters in the case, Justices Brewer and Peckham, would likely have had more support from the majority ruling justices who heard the case if they had been made aware of the real dangers associated with the oxymoron known as vaccine science.

I think it is time to retest Jacobson v. Massachusetts in a modern-day legal setting, and one that takes into consideration the full extent of the safety issues associated with vaccines. These products have become overly oppressive in nature for all human beings because they pose serious health threats to the general public they have, in theory, been designed to protect. The current health risks stemming from vaccine products extend far beyond what the justices in 1905 considered safe for the general public.

In my opinion, the federal government will not try to mandate vaccines in the future because they would be afraid to place Jacobson v. Massachusetts in the line of fire of a real test. It has been tested in limited capacities in the past, but not with the argument that takes into consideration the case I have laid out in this post.

I think the powers that be would love to keep this precedent-setting decision right where it lies. To open it up to a brand new, real test scenario is opening a can of worms they can’t afford to open. If the decision was ever reversed, the controllers would lose their leverage and ability to populate search engines with articles that tell us that the federal government’s right to impose mandatory vaccines is protected by the US Constitution.

I, for one, would love to see this case revisited and put through a new legal test using the argument I have outlined.  Any lawyers out there that have more expertise than me concerning this subject, please feel free to weigh in on the conversation.