Vicky Hartzler (r) [2021 file photo].
Every hundred years or so.
In the U.S. Supreme Court, 1803:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
….It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.
If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply….
In the U.S. Supreme Court, 1905:
[….]
HENNING JACOBSON, Plff. in Err.,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
No. 70.
Argued December 6, 1904.
Decided February 20, 1905.
This case involves the validity, under the Constitution of the United States, of certain provisions in the statutes of Massachusetts relating to vaccination.
[….]
….Looking at the propositions embodied in the defendant’s rejected offers of proof, it is clear that they are more formidable by their number than by their inherent value. Those offers in the main seem to have had no purpose except to state the general theory of those of the medical profession who attach little or no value to vaccination as a means of preventing the spread of smallpox, or who think that vaccination causes other diseases of the body. What everybody knows the court must know, and therefore the state court judicially knew, as this court knows, that an opposite theory accords with the common belief, and is maintained by high medical authority. We must assume that, when the statute in question was passed, the legislature of Massachusetts was not unaware of these opposing theories, and was compelled, of necessity, to choose between them. It was not compelled to commit a matter involving the public health and safety to the final decision of a court or jury. It is no part of the function of a court or a jury to determine which one of two modes was likely to be the most effective for the protection of the public against disease. That was for the legislative department to determine in the light of all the information it had or could obtain. It could not properly abdicate its function to guard the public health and safety. The state legislature proceeded upon the theory which recognized vaccination as at least an effective, if not the best-known, way in which to meet and suppress the evils of a smallpox epidemic that imperiled an entire population. Upon what sound principles as to the relations existing between the different departments of government can the court review this action of the legislature? If there is any such power in the judiciary to review legislative action in respect of a matter affecting the general welfare, it can only be when that which the legislature has done comes within the rule that, if a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution….
….The latest case upon the subject of which we are aware is Viemester v. White, decided very recently by the court of appeals of New York. That case involved the validity of a statute excluding from the public schools all children who had not been vacinated. One contention was that the statute and the regulation adopted in exercise of its provisions was inconsistent with the rights, privileges, and liberties of the citizen. The contention was overruled, the court saying, among other things: ‘Smallpox is known of all to be a dangerous and contagious disease. If vaccination strongly tends to prevent the transmission or spread of this disease, it logically follows that children may be refused admission to the public schools until they have been vaccinated. The appellant claims that vaccination does not tend to prevent smallpox, but tends to bring about other diseases, and that it does much harm, with no good. It must be conceded that some laymen, both learned and unlearned, and some physicians of great skill and repute, do not believe that vaccination is a preventive of smallpox. The common belief, however, is that it has a decided tendency to prevent the spread of this fearful disease, and to render it less dangerous to those who contract it. While not accepted by all, it is accepted by the mass of the people, as well as by most members of the medical profession. It has been general in our state, and in most civilized nations for generations. It is generally accepted in theory, and generally applied in practice, both by the voluntary action of the people, and in obedience to the command of law. Nearly every state in the Union has statutes to encourage, or directly or indirectly to require, vaccination; and this is true of most nations of Europe. . . . A common belief, like common knowledge, does not require evidence to establish its existence, but may be acted upon without proof by the legislature and the courts.. . . The fact that the belief is not universal is not controlling, for there is scarcely any belief that is accepted by everyone. The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive; for the legislature has the right to pass laws which, according to the common belief of the people, are adapted to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. In a free country, where the government is by the people, through their chosen representatives, practical legislation admits of no other standard of action, for what the people believe is for the common welfare must be accepted as tending to promote the common welfare, whether it does in fact or not. Any other basis would conflict with the spirit of the Constitution, and would sanction measures opposed to a Republican form of government. While we do not decide, and cannot decide, that vaccination is a preventive of smallpox, we take judicial notice of the fact that this is the common belief of the people of the state, and, with this fact as a foundation, we hold that the statute in question is a health law, enacted in a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power….’
….We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the state. If such be the privilege of a minority, then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the state. While this court should guard with firmness every right appertaining to life, liberty, or property as secured to the individual by the supreme law of the land, it is of the last importance that it should not invade the domain of local authority except when it is plainly necessary to do so in order to enforce that law. The safety and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that commonwealth to guard and protect. They are matters that do not ordinarily concern the national government. So far as they can be reached by any government, they depend, primarily, upon such action as the state, in its wisdom, may take; and we do not perceive that this legislation has invaded any right secured by the Federal Constitution….
Vicky Hartzler (r), running for the U.S. Senate, definitely not a constitutional scholar:
Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler
Biden’s vaccine mandates have had devastating consequences.
Throughout Missouri, we’re seeing an alarming amount of pink slips and empty store shelves thanks to the White House’s recent government overreach.
(1/4)
[….]
2:27 PM · Oct 22, 2021
Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler
It’s clear these mandates are unconscionable and unconstitutional.
Nowhere in the United States Constitution does it allow governments to demand citizens undergo a medical procedure.
(2/4)
2:27 PM · Oct 22, 2021
Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler
Millions of workers are being targeted and terminated.
Occupations such as healthcare workers, police officers, pilots, teachers, USDA workers, and our servicemembers are being fired from their jobs and forced back to the sidelines — instead of heading back to work.
(3/4)
2:27 PM · Oct 22, 2021
Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler
This is ludicrous.
At the end of the day, Biden is simply creating yet another crisis and furthering division.
He needs to uphold his oath of office and work for the American people — not against them.
(4/4)
2:27 PM · Oct 22, 2021
Projection as a way of life.
Some of the responses:
Alarming amounts? I’m sure you have specific numbers. Looking forward to reading them.
The number ONE cause of police deaths this year and last year was.COVID-19.
Not getting vaccinated is having devastated effects. The average daily deaths in the US is 1600.
Wrong!
Mandates aren’t responsible for pink slips.
People who refuse to protect their fellow citizens are responsible for the pink slips.
Pretty sure we all know about Jacobson v Massachusetts.
Haven’t seen empty shelves here.
#SlickVickLies
What’s your plan to convince people to do the right thing and get vaccinated?
You make an extraordinary claim,
Where is your extraordinary evidence?
Please post pictures of empty store shelves, Vicky. I haven’t seen any since Trump’s Toilet Paper shortage of 2020.
Can the GQP do anything but obstruct and lie? Asking for loyal American citizens
Why fake Congressional reps do more harm than good. Your grift account is overdrawn, Missouri needs to open a different account with a different custodian.
You have no idea what you are talking about
[….]
Blah, blah the only devastating things happening in MO are caused by you Republicans & your constant belching of disinformation & out right lies. You & you “GOP” are void of ideas & or policies so you attempt to distract, distort & disrupt the #BidenProgress. #HartzlerWrong4MO
You have zero, ZERO regard for our healthcare workers who have been straining under the burdern of this pandemic for over a year and are now dealing with almost exclusively the unvaccinated. You’re a despicable, abominable monster.
Also alarming – over 700,000 Americans dead from Covid. Hospitals currently overcrowded with unvaccinated cases suddenly trusting doctors
They are not being fired. They are choosing to quit rather than follow job requirements.
Oh, Missouri. No wonder. They don’t care much for education in Missouri, do they? Or honesty?
You talk about protecting this nation from our enemies, yet at every turn, word, and tweet, you sew derision & division. This type of public display of flouting @POTUS because your side “lost” is a toddler’s tantrum, a clear signal, that we’re distracted & you’re the cause! Stop!
Psssst, she won’t get it right…all she cares about now is trying to win Blunts seat
You are a fool.
Demagoguing a vaccine as Missouri healthcare strains under the burden of the unvaccinated sick. I knew Republicans were scum but this is a new low.
From the Missouri Monthly Jobs Report: “Total payroll employment increased by 70,800 jobs from September 2020 to September 2021, reflecting the recovery from COVID-19 related job cuts last year.” [….]
Simple solution: They. Get. Vaccinated. And. Keep. Their. JOBS!
Judging by these numbers in Healthcare systems, there wont be many major losses. Healthcare workers who don’t believe in medicine; law enforcement officers who don’t believe in public safety; or USDA workers who don’t believe in aspects of quality & safety, need to leave now!
[….]
If by targeted you mean following order for the public good, then Good they should be fired without getting any form of unemployment.
Do better.
Would you honestly prefer your loved one to be in a hospital where everyone is vaccinated, or one where anything goes? If you say ‘anything goes’, you are obviously a liar.
Right. Occupations where we don’t need soft-minded ignorami.
You’re the ones furthering division you vapid airhead
What’s unconscionable is American health care workers and police officers being willing to spread a lethal virus to the people they swore to serve.
If unconstitutional, seems like the place to litigate would be a courthouse. Of course, it’s settle law, so instead of making a fool of yourself in court, you’re doing it here.
Stare decisis.
Haha. Medical procedure? For years, vaccines required by local hospitals – flu vaccination and Tdap before hire and annually for the flu shot. To protect patients. Thankful we now have a president trying to protect us from liars like you.
Sigh.
