Legal Reasoning and Writing - Essay Example

Memorandum Re: Question presented With consideration of the constitutional provisions for rights and liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment, together with other constitutional provisions that limit personal rights and grant states legislative authority, would Mr. Russell Dalrymple have a viable argument in court that the norovirus vaccination requirement failed the public health necessity holding of Jacobson? Short answerMr. Russell lacks a valid argument in the case because even though the Fourteenth amendment protect private rights and liberty, the constitution also restricts such rights at the public’s interest and recognizes states’ legislative authority that the courts would uphold based on the precedent that the case of Jacobson v Massachusetts’ (1905) set.

Statement of factsFacts to the case identify an epidemic, viral gastroenteritis, in the nation, which is also significant in the capital of South Caledonia. There has been a series of the viral infection that affects groups such as people in schools, apartment complexes, and has been reported in large emergency shelters. Viral gastroenteritis causes fever, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, and affects people by limiting their ability to go to work when they are sick or by forcing people to stay at home to take care of the infection’s victims.

There are however only few cases of hospitalization and two reported fatalities. A vaccine was developed a year ago and the FDA approved it for its proven effectiveness and limited adverse effects that is only realized as a sore at the point of injection. State Legislature of South Caledonia then passed a law requiring all people to receive vaccination with a fine of $ 750 for non-compliance unless a person receives state approval for exemption. Even though Mr. Russell does not qualify for exemption under the statute, he does not wish to apply for exemption and does not want to receive vaccination.

Instead, he wishes to sue the state for protection of his liberty. DiscussionThe constitution, statutes, and case laws are some of the sources of law for guiding judicial decisions and the case of Jacobson v Massachusetts (1905) offers a basis for interpreting conflicting provisions of the constitution and the statute of South Caledonia. While the constitution provides for protection of individuals rights and liberty, Fourteenth Amendment, it also restricts such rights based on rights of other citizens, the Ninth Amendment, and grants states legislative power (Schultz, 2009).

The facts of the Jacobson v Massachusetts’ case in which Jacobson declined to receive vaccination for chicken pox, arguing that his son and he would react to the vaccine, are consistent with Mr. Russell’s case and therefore establish the Jacobson v Massachusetts as a precedent. In the case, the courts held, at different levels that the plaintiff’s autonomy was limited to the interest of the public and he was liable for failing to receive vaccination (Gostin, 2002). ConclusionJacobson v Massachusetts’ case identifies with the facts of the case and would therefore be used as a precedent for interpreting the various provisions of the constitution and the statute of South Caledonia.

The courts are therefore likely to uphold public interest and the statute against Russell’s argument for autonomy. Russell would therefore lack a valid argument because constitution restricts his autonomy and the statute is constitutional. ReferencesGostin, L. (2002). Public health law and ethics: A reader. New York, NY: University of California Press. Schultz, D. (2009). Encyclopedia of the United States constitution. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing.