Analysis of the of Mr Dalrymple - Case Study Example

14TH AMENDMENT Memo From………. To………… It is important to the significance of using Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) as the precedence in deciding the case of Mr. Dalrymple. The defendant in this case needs to understand that norovirus vaccination by-law is enforceable by the state since it is consistent with the constitutional declaration of protecting its citizens in various spheres of life. Mr. Dalrymple faces charges as his mere opinion that consider these state laws as derogatory to the preamble of the constitution is not substantive in view of the larger scope of the law (Gostin, 2008) .

The case under study requires recognition of the United States constitution as the principle source of all laws. It is also critical to consider the content of the constitution in depths rather than shallow mastery and reference to the preamble. The overall goal of the constitution is to boost the welfare of the citizens with particular focus to liberty and human rights. All the statutes are derived from specific sections of the constitution which is also subject to amendments. In this case of vaccination, the cardinal objective of the State of South Caledonia health department was to improve healthcare of its population.

The effective implementation policy was to institute a law in line with section 137 of chapter 75 of the Revised Laws of Massachusetts. Mr. Dalrymple need to know that While the mere rejection of his offers of proof does not strictly present a federal question, the court may properly regard the exclusion of evidence upon the ground of its incompetency or immateriality under the statute as showing what, in the opinion of the state court, is the scope and meaning of the statute (Gostin, 2008).

It is very clear from the statute which provides that failure by any person eligible to vaccination to comply attracts a fine of $750. This was the case of Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) in which the battle on constitutional interpretation and understanding reigned. The defendant based the better part of his factual argument on the declaration of the preamble before the jury and lost. Although the defendant gave several facts in an effort to prove his innocence in Jacobson’s plea, the complainant won because all indications clearly tell that the defendant was duly informed and exempted of any expense in the vaccination process request.

This case presents several facts in regard to people’s understanding of the law. In line with the 14th amendment of the constitution and the vaccination law, the state health stand in derogation of rights secured by the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States (Parmet,2009). However, the ruling of the court will hold Mr. Dalrymple guilty since the preamble has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or any of its Departments. Mr. Dalrymple should know that his argument against the vaccination will be considered a matter of his personal opinion which may not be taken by the court as correct or be given effect merely because he considers it as the ground of non-compliance to the vaccination requirement(Parmet,2009).

In addition to that and in reference to Jacobson case, Mr. Dalrymple should know that his personal views will not hold in the face of the validity of the statute. This will neither entitle him to enjoy any exception from the legal provisions. References Gostin, L. O. (2008). Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint, Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Berkeley: University of California Press. Parmet, W. E. (2009). Populations, Public Health, and the Law. Washington: Georgetown University Press.