bgrly >>> law links

Electronic Frontier Foundation

 NtwkSltns - google - hoax    Groups

AlaCode75ACDLA - Ala.StateBar  

Ala Const 1901 -- Convention of 1901

Yahoo! News & comics -   MentalFloss - Wired -

LII Cornell   -   Justia  -  TalkLeft  -  comcast

 PublicResource   --    bulk - public.recourse

- - - - - - - - Constitution - - - - - - - -  -

1 For All  - 1st Center - Jack Miller Center - N.Const.Cntr - Am.Const.Society

Constitutionus.com Declaration of Independence Adams Defense

- - - - - - Courts and Laws - - - - - -

ScotusBlog - - scotus

TaxFoundation

Another of my rants:

By what authority does the government tell you what to do? Like vaccinations and masks and social distancing, and stay home?

You could start with the Preamble to Constitution. It's not authoritative, but explains why the rest follows:
"We the People [that's us, you and me] of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[ did you see "promote the general welfare ?]

Article 2, Section 8, first paragraph, in pertinent part, as lawyers say: The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States ... ;

and the last paragraph of Art. 2, sec. 8 "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

These are among an assortment of authorities called, in legal theory, Police Powers. The courts have spread barrels of ink thru court decisions explaining this idea. It has not changed much in 240 years.

and it all applies to the states, who have followed suit, and must deal with folks who believe independence carries no personal obligation.

About those threatened mandatory immunizations - It's been done for other diseases with SCOTUS approval.

Yes, the state governments have legal authority to require vaccination. Don't even think otherwise. We've been down this road before, with small pox, and most childhood diseases. With exceptions for medical reasons, your child must be vaccinated. I predict the religious exemptions will soon vanish.

In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court became involved in a Massachusetts case, wherein a citizen had refused the small pox vaccine and was criminally charged for violation of long standing Massachusetts law requiring small pox vaccination (since at least 1827). The Supreme Court upheld the Massachusetts law as a proper exercise of its police power to enforce public health standards. The Jacobson decision has been upheld since and used as federal court authority 881 times when I last checked.

Here's the story on WAPO.

Here's an excerpt from the SCOTUS syllabus, a brief summary, of the Jacobson case:

The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State. It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health.

Read the full Supreme Court document here: here:

Of course, the public health situation over a century after Jacobsen more defines when mandates prevail over individual liberties. The reader may find a discussions of mandate versus personal liberty in this NIH review of mandates, case law, and standards for judicial review.

Another consideration of Police Power in the NIH review finds that if a former common law power is not abrogated by a constitution or public law, it still exists. Thus, we find this in the Alabama code:

Section 1-3-1 Common law of England adopted. The common law of England, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution, laws and institutions of this state, shall, together with such institutions and laws, be the rule of decisions, and shall continue in force, except as from time to time it may be altered or repealed by the Legislature.
(Code 1907, §12; Code 1923, §14; Code 1940, T. 1, §3.)


Applicable to all states, even Louisiana, which holds the Napoleonic Code in similar reverence.

_____________________________________

A letter to the Dothan Eagle by "forever cold" (me) posted online in response to Judi Jay's letter published in the print edition Dec 20, 2020. Slightly edited here to correct typos:

In response to the writer on December 20th, 2020, concerning the qualifications of the VP-elect to become president. The writer alleges that since Mrs. Harris's parents were not born in the USA, she herself was not a "natural born citizen" and, therefore, not eligible to be president.

The meaning of "natural born" has not changed since 1787; it meant the same in British common law. A natural born citizen does not need to undergo the naturalization process and will never be issued naturalization papers. For example, I have the naturalization certificate earned by my Swedish grandfather. His natural-born daughter would not be able to execute such, as she was born in Massachusetts, and had no allegiance to foreign monarch to disavow.

Secondly, the U.S. expanded on these principles with the 14th Amendment which, among other things, declared that "all persons born or naturalized in the Unites States" are citizens. Until that time, the U.S. had no citizens, just member states who had citizens. The common usage of the time changed, from "these United States" we became "The United States".

An interesting review of the situation from 2016 can be found in an unchallenged Pennsylvania case by an internet search for Elliott v. Cruz, 137 A.3d 646 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016), which restates:

"[T]hose born in the United States ... even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one's parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President."

_____________________________________

bgrly >>> law links

Innocent, until proven penniless.
                      -  Shoe