The Legacy of Jacobson V. Massachusetts on Public Health

In the year 1803 the case of Marbury v. Madison was brought before the Supreme Court in order to address the issue of William Marbury’s appointment as federal circuit judge. This created a unique and complex challenge for the Supreme Court of the time because they were operating under no legal precedent, which meant that they had no prior cases to reference to reach a ruling. The issue came to a head after the Judiciary Act of 1801 allowed for President John Adams to appoint sixteen new circuit judges one of them being William Marbury. However, before Secretary of State Marshall ran out of time before he was able to deliver Marbury’s appointment. When the new Secretary of State James Madison entered office, he refused to deliver Marbury’s appointment, claiming that it was too late. Outraged, Marbury filed a writ of mandamus against Madison in order to force him to complete the specified action, which in this case was to deliver the commission. However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803. One of the key issues in the case was then if William Marbury was entitled to a remedy for the deprivation of his right to his commission. Chief Justice John Marshall with a narrow and technical ruling then determined that since President Adams with his signature had completed Marbury’s commission of appointment he was entitled to the

Marbury v. Madison has been hailed as one of the most significant cases that the Supreme Court has ruled upon. In this paper, I will explain the origins and background in the case, discuss the major Constitutional issues it raised, and outline the major points of the courts decision. I will also explain the significance of this key decision.

The case Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health was heard by the Supreme Court in 1990. Originally the case was started when the Missouri Department of Health refused the request of Nancy Beth Cruzan's parents to take their daughter off of a Feeding and Hydration Tube that had been on their child for 3 years. Nancy Cruzan was driving one night and it was guessed her car hit a ice patch and spun out of control. Nancy was thrown 30 feet from her car (she was not wearing a seatbelt) and was found by a trooper who could not tell how long she had been face down in the snowy ditch. At the hospital the doctors noticed that she had been without oxygen in her brain for fourteen minutes. Any person who is without oxygen in their

In 2006, the state of Massachusetts set out to close the gap in the number of uninsured citizens within its borders. The number of uninsured non-elderly adults in the state was nearly 17% (Chandra, 2011a). The same author said executives in the state realized the growing problem and were earnestly looking for ways to promote individual responsibility. One primary way of closing this gap has been through the development and implementation of what was called the Massachusetts Commonwealth Connector: a consumer-driven internet based healthcare market place. Although proposed in 2006, it wasn’t until 2008 that the system was rolled out at the state level (Chandra, 2011b).

Today, I am presented with a case that puts in question the violation of individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. This case also puts in question the rights of the authority placed in our streets, neighborhoods and towns to perform actions directed towards certain citizens in an effort to serve and protect the overall population. There must be a careful analysis in order to interpret the records of the incident that occurred to conclude who holds the most justified position in this case under the applicable laws. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York must also take into careful consideration the circumstances discussed and the ruling given by the District Court assigned to this case, which I

In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts law that gave municipal boards of health the authority to require the vaccination of persons over the age of 21 against smallpox, and determined that the vaccination program instituted in the city of Cambridge had “a real and substantial relation to the protection of the public health and safety.” In upholding the law, the Court noted that “the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations

In the landmark case of Marbury v Madison(1803) the US supreme court was granted the first ever judicial review, which meant that the supreme court could make and null and void any laws passed by congress which were unconstitutional. In 1801 when President Jefferson took office, he refused to let his secreteary of state John Madison fulfill the commisons given to judges appoint by his opponent, John Adams. A result of this was appointed justice Willam Marbury petitioned for a writ of mandamus to require Madison to explain why marbury should be denied his judgeship which was had been appointed too. Chief justice marshall ruled that marbury had that right as the US suprmeme court shold protect the rights aof indiciualds eben if this goes against

Marbury was a committed federalist who believed that the Jeffersonian argument to reduce federal government control and give power back to state governments was deeply flawed ( ).

The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the

The power of judicial review says that judges or people of the court have jurisdiction to decide whether a law or any others acts by government is constitutional. Judicial review started back when John Adams was serving his term as president. It applied to the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803. This case came about because at the end of John Adams he appointed 42 new justices of peace, but the new President Thomas Jefferson overlooked the commissions and decided not to send out the letters to the appointed justices. This led to one of the Federalist appointees, William Marbury to file a lawsuit against Thomas Jefferson’s secretary of state. Jefferson’s secretary of state at the time was James Madison. Marbury wanted the documents delivered so

This case was definitely one of the most important court cases in history. The case was very significant , to the point where it affects us even today. It gave congress the power to determine whether a law made by the legislatures was constitutional or not. This was considered Judicial Review , all laws had to go through them to become actual laws.

of life and the United States Supreme Court weighted in on this and made its decision regarding

Much like the Jacobson v. Massachusetts court case, the Zucht v. King (1922) case plays a large role in the constitutionality of compulsory vaccinations. However, unlike Jacobson v. Massachusetts, Zucht v. King has nothing to do with the child’s reaction to vaccinations. In this case, public officials excluded Rosalyn Zucht from public schools after she failed to have the certificate of required vaccinations (Goodwin, Chemerinsky 2016). Her parents repeatedly refused to vaccinate her, therefore, she was seen as a hazard to other children at school. Since schools have such a high concentration of children all crammed into a small area and forced to interact with each other, this is an ideal place to facilitate a huge outbreak if even a single

The reason, according to political scientists, is that it was a very salient case. Salience in a case refers to the importance of a case to the public. Cases that make their way to the Supreme Court are special in that they tend to ask difficult or novel legal questions, set precedent for the Court or will resolve conflicts across circuits—sometimes a single case can do all three (Clark, Lax and Rice 2015). Cases that are salient typically garner a lot of interest from the public because the implications of a single decision will have an incredibly strong impact on their day-to-day lives. Political scientists argue that case salience can be good indicators of diffuse support, support for the institution itself or specific support, support for policy handed down or set by the institution. Going back to my research question, it becomes understandable how case salience can affect support for the institution itself in that the Court needed to take into consideration how ruling in favor of or against the case would have affected the people the it is meant to serve. The Court must be careful in salient decisions because ruling against a case that has garnered much public attention could potentially endanger the institution’s reputation, or legitimacy, as well as decrease the amount of support the public would have for the institution.

1999). Dr. Walter E. Williams provided an idea that the government is denying rights, however, he refuses to discuss the idea of saving lives and health costs. A compromise should exist between rights and responsibility, but the current policy shows a more advantage situation.