Fire_Wall january 2025 SoCal fire

Saturday Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

“Mr. Constitution”

Constitution Radio: With Doug, Alan and Dennis – KMET 1490 AM, Saturday 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm Pacific

http://www.kmet1490am.com

https://www.douglasvgibbs.com/radio/

2022/2023/2024 Podcast Page

Classic Podcast Page on SoundCloud (for pre-2022 episodes)

Call in: 951-922-3532

Today’s Topics:

★ Southern California in Flames

➨ Democratic Party’s Policies Lead to Devastation

★ Big Beautiful Bill Goes Against Conservative Values

➨ The Omnibus Bill being called for to pass Trump’s Agenda not a good idea

★ Laken Riley Act

➨ 159 Democrats Vote Against bill targeting criminal aliens

★ Sentencing of Trump Signals End of Lawfare…Right?

➨ Democrats Refuse To Remove Claws Against Trump

★ We the People as Individuals, or as a Collective?

➨ Constitution versus Emergency Powers and Individual Natural Rights

  • Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) was the decision that the United States Supreme Court ruled that State can impose a vaccine mandatorily — in this case, the Small Pox Vaccine. But, there’s more to this diabolical case than we realize. 

Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) case did not mention anything about rights being God-given. The case primarily focused on the state’s authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws under its police power to protect public health and safety. The Supreme Court upheld the state’s right to require vaccination during a smallpox outbreak, emphasizing that individual liberty is not absolute and can be restricted for public health reasons.

In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court acknowledged that individual rights are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulations for the sake of public health and safety. Justice John Harlan, writing for the majority, stated that the state’s police power includes the authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws to protect public health1. The Court emphasized that individual liberties may be restricted when necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, such as preventing the spread of a contagious disease.

Was the High Court’s opinion consistent with the U.S. Constitution? And, how does the line of thinking in the 1905 Jacobson Case continue to haunt us today? What are the modern ramifications of erroneous past judicial opinion?

The tyrannical nature of the ruling, on the surface, places community above the individual; a Marxist idea.  We must ask, when does government have the authority to tell individuals to step aside so that the community can be protected?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *