Given the changes in constitutional law, public health, and government regulation, what kinds of public health laws that address contagious diseases might be constitutionally permissible today? A law that authorizes mandatory vaccination during an epidemic of a lethal disease, with refusal punishable by a monetary penalty, like the one at issue in Jacobson, would undoubtedly be found constitutional under the low constitutional test of “rationality review.” However, the vaccine would have to be approved by the FDA as safe and effective, and the law would have to require exceptions for those who have contraindications to the vaccine. A law that authorizes mandatory vaccination to prevent dangerous contagious diseases in the absence of an epidemic, such as the school immunization requirement summarily upheld in 1922, also would probably be upheld as long as (1) the disease still exists in the population where it can spread and cause serious injury to those infected, and (2) a safe and effective vaccine could prevent transmission to others.
The legitimacy of compulsory vaccination programs depends on both scientific factors and constitutional limits. Scientific factors include the prevalence, incidence, and severity of the contagious disease; the mode of transmission; the safety and effectiveness of any vaccine in preventing transmission; and the nature of any available treatment. Constitutional limits include protection against unjustified bodily intrusions, such as forcible vaccination of individuals at risk for adverse reactions, and physical restraints and unreasonable penalties for refusal.
Heavy-handed policing was deployed in response to the Covid-19 outbreak in the nine tower blocks in Melbourne where residents are mainly Black, Brown and Asian. Fines have been administered more in suburbs where the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and/or migrant population is higher. But, the same logics of colonial policing used for over 200 years are also affecting other groups at a time when a policing, rather than a public-health oriented, response to the pandemic is being rolled-out by state governments with the use of fines, lockdowns, curfews, and even prison sentences against those who are seen as failing to comply with Covid orders.
Panellists
Roxanne Moore is a Noongar woman and human rights lawyer from Margaret River in Western Australia. She is the Executive Officer for the National Peak body on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (NATSILS ). Previously, Roxanne was an Indigenous Rights Campaigner with Amnesty International Australia and Principal Advisor to Change the Record Coalition. Roxanne has worked for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission, as Principal Associate to the Hon Chief Justice Wayne Martin AC QC; as a commercial litigator; and has international experience with UNHCR Jordan and New York University’s Global Justice Clinic. Roxanne studied law at the University of WA, and completed an LLM (International Legal Studies) at NYU, specialising in human rights law, as a 2013 Fulbright Western Australian Scholar. Professor
Megan Davis is Pro Vice-Chancellor Indigenous and Professor of Law at UNSW. She is Acting Commissioner of the NSW Land and Environment Court and was recently appointed the Balnaves Chair in Constitutional Law. Professor Davis currently serves as a United Nations expert with the UN Human Rights Council’s Expert Mechanism on the rights of Indigenous peoples based in UN Geneva. Megan is an Acting Commissioner of the NSW Land and Environment Court. Professor Davis is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences. She is a member of the NSW Sentencing Council and an Australian Rugby League Commissioner. Professor Davis was Director of the Indigenous Law Centre, UNSW Law from 2006-2016. Professor Davis is formerly Chair and expert member of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2011-2016). As UNPFII expert she was the focal point for UN Women and UN AIDS. During this period of UN service, Megan was the Rapporteur of the UN EGM on an Optional Protocol to the UNDRIP in 2015, the Rapporteur of the UN EGM on Combating violence against Indigenous women and girls in 2011 and the UN Rapporteur for the International EGM on Indigenous Youth in 2012. Megan has extensive experience as an international lawyer at the UN and participated in the drafting of the UNDRIP from 1999-2004 and is a former UN Fellow of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.
Dr Vicki Sentas is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Law at UNSW. She researches processes of criminalisation and racialisation in law and policing. She teaches in criminal law, criminology and policing and coordinates the Police Powers Clinic, an experiential learning course, in partnership with Redfern Legal Centre. Her recent and current research projects examine: the effects of counter-terrorism practices on criminal justice and racialised peoples; the criminalisation of armed conflicts, self-determination and diasporas through the use of security lists; police powers and their relationship to diverse forms of regulation including pre-emption and prosecution; police accountability and criminal justice reform.
This is one of a series all printed on quality photographic paper. Each of the rich photographs included were hand-tinted prior to printing. They each have water stain at the bottom edge that may be evident when framed. (See photo.)
Title: Where History Was and Is Made
Date: 1915
Page: 11" x 14"
$9.00 and free shipping in the U.S. Outside the U.S., shipping is $4.00. Frame not included.
Don’t miss your chance to attend the last @usnatarchives sleepover of the year! Kids become superhero citizens and meet heroes from history throughout the night before sleeping next to America’s most precious treasures: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
History, Heroes & Treasures is supported by the National Archives Foundation; John Hancock; Susan Gage Catering; and American Heritage® Chocolate. Chocolate history demonstrations led by Mars Chocolate History Ambassadors.
When the NBA came down on Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling with the punishment of a lifetime NBA ban and a move to force him to sell the team today, I was honestly a bit shocked. I was expecting a slap on the wrist, which is usually the norm in any and all of these situations. “You mean the bad racist rich man is actually going to lose this time?” I thought. “Incredible.”
The dumbest thing I’ve heard in defense of Donald Sterling and his racist comments was courtesy of everyone’s favorite dumbass Donald Trump. It’s hard to top Donald Trump claiming Donald Sterling was SET UP by an evil woman who recorded Sterling’s private (racist) comments.
However, when you put a challenge forth like topping the idiocy of Donald Trump, many will accept that challenge, unknowingly, and attempt to accomplish such a thing.
I bring you: people who think the “Constitution,” “freedom of speech,” “first amendment,” any phrase that they use in an attempt to sound knowledgable, protects Donald Sterling and he cannot be punished.
Small tiny little teeny weeny note before we continue here: The First Amendment protects Donald Sterling from government censorship. For example, Donald Sterling cannot be jailed for his racist comments. However, the Constitution does NOT force a private entity, such as the NBA, to continue working with you after you say something extremely racist.
Without any further ado…
Mark, when you find it, be sure to read it and let me know what it says.
No, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
I assume Hannah doesn’t actually know what the first amendment is and this is not meant to be a rhetorical question.
No it won’t.
lmao this dude has it all backwards and is calling for the players to break their contracts.
Thanks for clarifying that you are not a fan of racist comments.
You?
Moving on, there’s these two great conversations @YesYoureRacist had over on Twitter trying to explain to these fools that the first amendment does not apply to a private entities rules and regulations. Sadly for the sake of us all, they just do not get it:
lmao
He sure does get the “specifically the rich and powerful” part right, though.
Next up, we have the white people who believe this is just another example about how the United States of America holds the WHITE MAN down…
Poor white people. :(
White people never get to speak out. :(
You’re welcome to all the white people for giving white man’s plight a platform here.
Some of my favorite tweets were from Conservatives who hate big government complaining that…a private company is allowed to create whatever rules they’d like inside their own private organization? What…
Does anyone know what “legal progressive scum weather” is? Is it a rainstorm? A Hurricane? Weather created by HAARP? A haboob?
And finally, my favorite of the bunch. The tweet in itself may not be much different from the others…
…but you’ll see why it’s extra special when you take a look at Martin’s bio…
On Thursday, Sen. Rand Pau (R-Ky) and Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) reintroduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act in Congress. The bill, if passed, would be the most sweeping reform of abuse-prone federal civil forfeiture law since the 1980s. …
Local, state, and federal lawmakers control none of this vast sum of money. Law enforcement agencies can spend it all outside normal appropriations processes. …
Most cases never get as far as a courtroom, though, and end instead in so-called administrative forfeitures. In these instances, the law enforcement agency that seized the property – and stands to gain financially by keeping it – plays the role of judge, prosecutor, and jury all in one. …
Crucially, the FAIR Act would also eliminate the forfeiture financial incentive altogether. Federal forfeiture proceeds would go directly to the general fund to be dispersed by Congress, and the equitable sharing program would be abolished. Federal agencies would no longer be able to seize their way to higher budgets, and state and local officials would no longer be incentivized to bypass more restrictive state forfeiture laws.
Paul and Walberg first introduced the FAIR Act in 2014. At the time, civil forfeiture was something few people had heard of, and there appeared to be little appetite for reform. But in the years since, dozens of state legislatures have reined in their abuse-prone forfeiture statutes, and last year Congress advanced several forfeiture-reform bills, though none has yet made it to the president’s desk.
Poll after poll reveals broad public support for stronger protections against unjust and baseless seizures. Some even show a remarkably high percentage of Americans have been directly affected by forfeiture.
We can no longer afford to ignore the problem. Congress can make 2017 the year of forfeiture reform.
752 BC - Romulus, 1st king of Rome, celebrates the 1st Roman triumph after his victory over the Caeninenses, following the Rape of the Sabine Women
1781 - Continental Congress officially adopts the Articles of Confederation, the 1st constitution of the USA
1870 - War of the Triple Alliance finally ends with the Battle of Cerra Cora and the death of Paraguayan Dictator Lopez after 5 years of bloodshed between Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay
1872 - Yellowstone becomes world’s 1st national park (pictured)
1896 - Henri Becquerel discovers radioactivity
1932 - The “Lindbergh Kidnapping”, 20 month old son of Charles and Anne Lindbergh kidnapped from home in NJ; found dead 12 May
1954 - US explodes Castle Bravo, a 15 megaton hydrogen bomb at Bikini Atoll, which accidentally became the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated by the US
2020 - First known COVID-19 case identified in New York, a health care worker returning from Iran
What do y'all notice is similar about the people depicted, here?
TOP: President Donald J. Trump announcing the #SCOTUS nomination of Neil Gorsuch (screenshot by Michael Sitarzewski)
BOTTOM: Painting of “Scene of the Signing of the Constitution of the United States” (by Howard Chandler Christy)
Gorsuch considers himself to be a “constitutional originalist” - meaning, he assesses everything as he believes the forefathers would’ve in 1789 (potentially minus Amendments that have been made)
I find it very telling that Alito directly says not to consider the public reaction to their decision when it comes to overturning Roe v. Wade because it’s clear there will be much public unrest at the loss of a major reproductive right which lays the groundwork for a lot of other cases after.
The Court’s conservatives do not care about public unrest or popular opinion. They never have. They don’t see it as their job to respond to the will of the people because they’re not elected (and they’re not supposed to be! You don’t want judges to be elected!). The issue is that they don’t take modernity or 20th century trends into account.
Judges like Alito think their only role is to interpret the text of the Constitution and its amendments as they would have been interpreted when written, forever frozen in time, regardless of what the writer(s) intended. That’s what “originalism” or “textualism” or “Judges are like umpires” means. It’s all legal fundamentalism. In their minds, how dare a judge consider modern life or recent history when interpreting a word in a 200 year old document?? How dare a judge give wide (but rational) interpretations to a word or phrase in order to give people new freedoms??? They decry it as “judicial activism” and claim that new freedoms can only be decided by the elected legislature. (Remember, the legislative branch makes the laws; the executive makes regulation to enforce the existing laws but cannot make new laws.)
To the conservatives, if we want change then we need to add new words to the Constitution via the amendment process. And to do that, we need new executives and legislators — so we have to vote for the Democrats/liberals at every level. That’s how the conservatives got to this point! They held their nose and voted for every candidate with the ® next to their name for every election for 50 years.
In the meantime, get loud with your existinglegislators and executives, not judges. Protest, write letters, make phone calls. Donate time or money to organizations that are fighting back. Or run for office yourself! When the time comes, vote for President, Senate, House of Representatives, and your state Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, and state legislators. Popular opinion may not sway the Supreme Court, but you might be able to oust some shitty state legislators. Or elect a state Attorney General who won’t prosecute women who miscarry. Ideally the Democrats will even keep the Senate and fend off Mitch McConnell for a few more years. And that could make the difference in protecting rights in your state, or even nationwide, while we fix this at the Constitutional level.
Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!
-Some random staffer (possibly Dan Scavino), on behalf of President Donald J. Trump
Our Analysis
There is a 38% chance that Donald Trump wrote this tweet himself.
Word probabilities: 12/87 (Trump/Staff) Time probabilities: 9/90 (Trump/Staff) Metadata probabilities: 66/33 (Trump/Staff) Posted at: Wed Jan 6 14:24:22 2021 EST [Link] Tweet Source: Twitter for iPhone
The most informative terms in this tweet were: mike (Trump, 2.4:1), pence (Trump, 2.2:1), courage (Trump, 1.4:1), done (Trump, 4.5:1), country (Trump, 2.1:1), giving (Trump, 2.3:1), states (Trump, 2.0:1), chance (Trump, 2.3:1), set (Trump, 1.4:1), asked (Trump, 5.2:1), usa (Trump, 1.4:1), truth (Trump, 1.4:1), ! (Trump, 1.3:1)
A computer sees the following emotions in this tweet (NRC): {‘positive’: 4, 'surprise’: 1, 'trust’: 4, 'anger’: 2, 'disgust’: 1, 'negative’: 3}
Pictured: The 1892 National Prohibition Convention
In 1919, the 18th amendment was ratified, prohibiting the transportation and sale of alcohol in the United States. While prohibitionists (known as “dries”) applauded its ratification, others (known as “wets”) were not as pleased. The 21st amendment, ratified in 1933, would repeal it.
Thanks to the repeal of the 21st amendment, our intern Maria, who regularly updates our Tumblr page, can celebrate her 21st birthday in style. Happy birthday to her!
Delaware becomes the first state to ratify the U.S. Constitution, inspiring the state slogan, “It’s Good Being First.” The ratification is later seen as a desperate bid to replace their original slogan, “It’s Not the Size of the Ship, but Rather the Motion of the Ocean.”
With the signing of the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787, the founding fathers approved for the people of this Nation an effective plan of self-government, which has, with its subsequent amendments – including the Bill of Rights – preserved the principles of the Declaration of Independence. It is the responsibility of the citizens of the United States to uphold, support and defend those ideals.
Constitution Day and Citizenship Day commemorates the signing of the Constitution, and encourages people to learn more about their rights and responsibilities as citizens of the United States.
The Constitution is on permanent display year round at the U.S. National Archives in Washington, DC. Read the full transcription of it on the National Archives website. Explore additional resources for learning and teaching about the Constitution from the National Archives Education Updates blog.
“Philadelphia is a good city in which to write American history.“
-Franklin D. Roosevelt
Happy Constitution Day! Today’s the day when we celebrate the signing of the U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787!
The Constitution acted like a colossal merger, uniting a group of states with different interests, laws, and cultures. Under America’s first national government, the Articles of Confederation, the states acted together only for specific purposes. The Constitution united its citizens as members of a whole, vesting the power of the union in the people. Without it, the American Experiment might have ended as quickly as it had begun.
The National Archives is home to the Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. Today is a great day to brush up on your Charters of Freedom history, or to learn something new about America’s founding documents. Head over to Archives.gov for Constitution Day!
I believe in a #Voluntary society of non-aggression and peace. Governments rely on the use of force and hence are counter to peace. #peace #nonaggression #violence #nap #principle #voluntaryism #ronpul #anarchy #freedom #prosperity #happiness #happy #society #love #acceptance #drugwar #war #usa #america #constitution #liberty #kickstarter #crowdfunding #rothbard #mises #economics #freemarkets #free #bornfree #evolve #evolution
ALT
