Jacobson v. Massachusetts - 197 U.S. 11, 25 S. Ct. 358 (1905)

 

Jacobson v. Massachusetts - 197 U.S. 11, 25 S. Ct. 358 (1905)

 

RULE:

The police power of a state must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety. The mode or manner is within the discretion of the state, subject only to the condition that no rule prescribed by a state, nor any regulation adopted by a local governmental agency acting under the sanction of state legislation, shall contravene the Constitution of the United States. A local enactment or regulation must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the general government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, or with any right which that instrument gives or secures.

 

FACTS:

Cities in Massachusetts could require that all residents be vaccinated against small pox, as authorized by a state statute.  This type of regulation was adopted by the city of Cambridge.

 

ISSUE:

In order to protect public health and safety, does the scope of the state’s police power include the authority to enact reasonable regulations to do so?

 

ANSWER:

Yes.

 

CONCLUSION:

In order to protect public health and safety, the scope of the state"s police power includes the authority to enact reasonable regulations to do so.  The Constitution secures liberty for every person within its jurisdiction, but does not give an absolute right for each person to be free from restraint at all times and in all circumstances.  Every person is required to be subject to various restraints for the common good.  The efforts by Cambridge to stamp out smallpox are substantially related to the protection of public health and safety.  There has been nothing to clearly justify the Court holding the statute to be unconstitutional.  Affirmed.

·        

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003,

V erba legis , that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their  ordinary meaning  except where technical terms are employed. ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003. http://lapispapelatereyser.blogspot.com/2012/10/case-digest_9528.html FACTS: On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, sponsored by Representative Felix William D. Fuentebella, which directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)."   On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes." The complaint ...
Read more