Originally Posted by
Video Expert
Sorry guys, but you've entered my wheelhouse now. The bolded part is NOT False at all.
If you actually read the Majority Opinion, the 1905 SCOTUS decision you reference (Jacobson v. Massachusetts) was a 10th Amendment (States Rights) and a 14th Amendment (Due Process) case based on enforcing an existing Massachusetts State Statute mandating vaccinations (due to Smallpox at that time) and a particular local government (City of Cambridge) attempting to enforce that law within its boundaries. What it was not based on, was a temporary or indefinite Ordinance or Proclamation passed solely by a Local/Municipal Government or Council without the "Supreme Authority" and/or "Lawful Backing" of the State in which the Municipality is located. The key wording in the decision was this..."States have the authority to enact reasonable legislative regulations to protect public health and safety which the Massachusetts statute sought to achieve."
The State of Oklahoma never passed a compulsatory Mask Mandate Law of any kind at any time during the COVID19 Pandemic that the City of Norman was trying to enforce within its boundaries. The City of Norman is not a State...it lies inside the State of Oklahoma. As a result and absent an Oklahoma State Law as the precursor, Jacobson v. Massachusetts isn't applicable in this case.
Bookmarks