Thanks for putting your foot in it all the way up to your pelvis.
From Karl Denninger's Market Ticker site recently:
And don't kid yourself -- those arguing that Jacobson, a USSC decision centering on smallpox from 1905, a disease with a 30% fatality rate, are flat-out wrong on several levels.
First, in Jacobson the only penalty for refusal was a one time $5 fine. Today that's about $150. The scope of the penalty often informs the constitutionality of the action; that which mandates your execution is subject to a greater level of scrutiny than a traffic ticket, which is approximately what the level of the dispute involved in Jacobson was.
Second, in Jacobson the refuser was criminally prosecuted and convicted; in other words he did not get a summary judgement via extra-judicial or private process, he was first tried and convicted in a court of law where he could and did present all of his evidence and experts; he lost in a judicial proceeding. Exactly zero of the current mandates have included any such due-process protection on a collective -- say much less individualized -- basis.
Get stuffed.
grey_whiskers wrote: “From Karl Denninger’s Market Ticker site recently: “And don’t kid yourself — those arguing that Jacobson, a USSC decision centering on smallpox from 1905, a disease with a 30% fatality rate, are flat-out wrong on several levels.”
Why am I not surprised that you would use “Karl Denninger’s Market Ticker site” as a source for both medical and legal advice? There are a plethora of other medical and legal sites that offer a much more scholarly analysis of this question. IOW, Karl Denninger is an American technology businessman, finance blogger, and political activist, sometimes referred to as a founding member of the Tea Party movement. Not the kind of resume that would lend credence to this article. I would suggest a google search of Jacobson v. Massachusetts to get more reliable and credible analysis. FWIW, Jacobson v. Massachusetts has been the law of the land for over 100 years. It has been challenged multiple times citing essentially the same arguments made by the anti-vaxxer community against the COVID vaccines and has that community has lost each challenge.