Quantcast

Can you sue the state?

possiblymaybe 2010/11/26 10:26:48
Related Topics: Family, Fish, Death
You!
Add Photos & Videos
I was looking over the Mandatory vaccine bill in Massachusetts (in an emergency pandemic) and as it turns out the options are a shot -or- quarantine (prison) and/or $1000 per day fine.

Issue, hundreds (maybe thousands) of families children could die from a vaccine due to allergies to eggs, fish or even shock reactions to thermisol or other ingredients.

I was talking to mothers who have similar concerns. Some fear a haphazard vaccination could kill their children (one of the boosters is made from fish oil), and they obviously can't pay the fine, and a quarantine could leave them in their house for a month or possibly detained.

All politicians assure the bill is not meant to be used that way, but others disagree that because nothing says it can't be used that way, that it would be. Others go as far as to suggest it's certainly and eventually going to be used that way, and in the event of an real emergency (like a Katrina, war or a real epidemic) that emergency persons aren't going to be checking for allergies.

On another note, I was watching Katrina videos. State police and outside police were not very understanding if you know what I mean.

Some parents want to know if the state can be SUED "before" an incident for passing a bill that could lead to a forced delivery of a substance that could result in injury or death.
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • vicb626 2010/12/03 17:23:20
    Yes they can sue the state for a state law.
    vicb626
    We just found out in Fla. that the DMV sold information to a telemarketer in Texas, who in turn sold the info to another firm. Needless to say a lot of people are livid. But here's the paradox, if we sue the state who are we really suing? That's right, the tax paying citizens of the state...ourselves, the only ones coming out ahead would be the lawyers. The best solution I could think of is to force the Governor to fire the top ten people of the DMV and any others involved then force new laws to prevent this in the future. There's more than enough pissed off Floridians to force this. What may make the difference between our two instances is our involves every driver in the state so a class action would result in minimal rewards, where as your may not be as widespread which might make it more feasible, but the bottom line is still the taxpayers bill to pay win or not.
  • possibl... vicb626 2010/12/06 03:09:19
    possiblymaybe
    Thanks for your input
  • cynsity 2010/11/28 02:30:21
    Yes they can sue the state for a state law.
    cynsity
    This issue has already been addressed in the supreme court and is covered in teh US Constitution. Amendment XIV gives a person control over their selves and behaviors and this has been upheld in Supreme Court cases such as Jacobson v Mass (1905) and again in Bartling v Supior Courts (1984). A sui filed though would likely be rejected by the courts and the rendering would be a reitteration of the laws as stated in the US Constitution. basicly you could sue, but the case would never see daylight. And no a state can not force a vaccine as both Jacobson nad Bartling are direct on point against such actions.
  • Faith † cynsity 2010/12/03 04:17:30 (edited)
    Faith †
    good info thanks
  • cynsity Faith † 2010/12/03 05:01:17
    cynsity
    welcome...
  • NidStyles 2010/11/27 08:13:39
    No they can't sue the state. Run for the border.
    NidStyles
    You can form a class action suit, but as an individual you can not sue the state.
  • DavethNative* 2010/11/27 00:13:56
    Yes they can sue the state for a state law.
    DavethNative*
    I am not lawyer and don't claim to be. But as many medical problems as these vaccines have caused, I would be willing to bet that a good enough lawyer could definitely challenge this. But the problem is. Who can afford the lawyers? I can't.
    When I worked last year part time for the government, they said I had to get the swine flu vaccine before I could work. I told them I already had had the swine flu and didn't need them. (And I really did have the swine flu.) But they did not question me about it.
  • ladyjane 2010/11/26 22:56:23
    Yes they can sue the state for a state law.
    ladyjane
    It seems that Massachusetts is always messing with the people that live there. If I were a citizen of the state I would probably think about moving out of there. Maybe to CT or RI I don't know how much better they are but they aren't far from MA and you could still visit when you want..I would also try and find out how hard it would be to fight to have that law repealed!
  • NarcolepticGoat 2010/11/26 22:19:09
    Yes they can sue the state for a state law.
    NarcolepticGoat
    unless they exempt people who are allergic
  • possibl... Narcole... 2010/11/26 23:33:57
    possiblymaybe
    I think they do if it's not an emergency, but in an emergency you never know.

    I remember a story from my dad when Polio was huge in his day. They made it an emergency. He got his that day. The next day his cousin had Polio, he woke up with it. I'm not saying it's not important to get vaccines because even though they are harmful in some ways, we've managed to control a host a very bad diseases. However, flu's and seasonal shots are different I find because they're based on projection. No guarantee they offer any protection against current strains. And if caught very early, many of even the worst viruses are treatable. But a bad reaction might not be treatable. In epidemic level emergencies, they don't go 1 by 1 and check allergies. If you opt out, you are detained/quarantined and charged $1000 per day. Notice how the TSA screenings treated people in that once in place you can't opt out without detrimental consequences. Well, in a medical emergency, putting people in detention or quarantine can cause problems too. What if someone was sick and everyone catches it. It really sounds like a movie. It sucks.
  • Narcole... possibl... 2010/11/26 23:46:06
    NarcolepticGoat
    Diseases are a touchy thing, when you mix it with law. It is similar to TSA, how much freedom vs risk of harm to many.

    I read a wonderful book about Typhoid Mary. There were no laws to cover the danger she posed, and since she did not believe she could possibly be a carrier (how can invisible creatures exist, after all) she repeatedly got jobs as a cook, and infected (and killed) many people. Judges would tell her not to but she couldn't make a living any other way. She finally wound up being "jailed" in a house on some island.

    http://www.amazon.com/Typhoid...

    The problem with the flu is that it is almost always a disease that hits the young and old, but, when the pattern changes a la 1918 it is devastating. It killed more people than WWI. Waiting to see if it will become that serious again means the population will most likely be vaccinated too late.

    Even if NO one dies, imagine the impact of 10 - 20 % of everyone around you sick enough to be hospitalized.
  • danila777 2010/11/26 21:00:16
    No they can't sue the state. Run for the border.
    danila777
    There are people out there that are allergic to certain things in the vaccinations, a doctor told me that I should just put up with the side effects from them, then die from the influenza or whatever. So if it ever comes to mandatory vaccinations we are out of here.
  • possibl... danila777 2010/11/26 23:34:26
    possiblymaybe
    They are not mandatory there?
  • danila777 possibl... 2010/11/26 23:46:17
    danila777
    so far our family doctors can prove that in our family it does more harm than good. I took a flu vaccine and ended in the hospital in a coma, my husband got one in 2008 and he was partially paralyzed so why would we put our children and ourselves to that risk again?
  • possibl... danila777 2010/11/27 05:02:22
    possiblymaybe
    Oh I totally understand. That's what I'm talking about here. But your case isn't as rare as media would like us to believe. In my own state it turns out to be hundreds of known families with severe reactions. It could be thousands, as there is no real communication line between families. I discovered this on a network of blogs and social diaries. I can only imagine this is in every state, some kind of severe reaction. My state is tiny too. If there are almost 1000 people here with severe reactions, how many nationwide?
  • danila777 possibl... 2010/11/27 05:32:15
    danila777
    I do not know, but I have 10 children of my own that I'm not willing to risk. I'm the oldest of 12 and all my brothers and sisters have the same problems and my nieces and nephews, all of us together are about 50 people.
  • STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL 2010/11/26 14:15:33
    No they can't sue the state. Run for the border.
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    As a generality, the states have the right to impose any law they wish, as long as the Constitution does not deny the states the power in question. Here you would be talking about a lawsuit at equity to have the vaccine bill vacated, as opposed to a standard lawsuit for monetary damages. In order to win such a lawsuit, you would need to prove that either:

    (1) The vaccine bill violates the Constitution (it probably doesn't).

    (2) The vaccine bill violates parallel or higher level law of the state.
  • possibl... STU~PWC... 2010/11/26 17:53:23
    possiblymaybe
    +1
    Well, the issue is there are a lot of laws on the federal level now (since bush/obama) that agree with this law and other examples of coercion to enforece mandatory volunteerism. The problem is, this would kill some children. Can the state pass a law that says "The governor can shoot you in the face, randomly, for no reason."

    What constitutes a violation of the Constitution? Is there any provision therein for such a law? So does that mean whereby the Constitution is supposed to limit federal power, by granting it to a State, it makes it's actions limitless? So the right to life and liberty is not actually a right?

    What's parallel or higher level law?
  • STU~PWC... possibl... 2010/12/05 23:03:27
    STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
    At the federal level, passing a federal law to require vaccination or volunteerism would not be legal, as neither are enumerated federal powers in the Constitution.

    The state cannot pass a law giving the Governor the right to randomly kill people. The constitution places limits on state actions that are punitive in nature (such as reasonable cause for a warrant, right to a speedy trial, proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, etc.).

    The Constitution is violated whenever the federal government exercises a power that is not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution, or a state or individual exercises a power that the Constitution withholds from them. State powers are not unlimited, as the Constitution does in fact limit state (as well as individual) powers.

    "parallel or higher level law" - This simply means law that is at the same or higher level of legal precedence.
  • bones327 2010/11/26 13:38:36
    Yes they can sue the state for a state law.
    bones327
    +1
    You can sue the state over a law. The first question is "does the person bringing the suit have standing to sue?" What does that mean? The issue is whether the person bringing such a case has a legal basis to be in court over a matter. You can't just sue, because you don't like something. You have to have some "skin in the game." If a medicine is made with peanuts, a person with a deadly allergy to peanuts would be able to sue to be able to refuse to take that medicine and not be fined.
  • possibl... bones327 2010/11/26 17:59:56
    possiblymaybe
    +2
    Well the issue is many of these moms have different situations. Is a class action suit more reasonable in cases like such?

    For instance, several hundred moms have kids allergic to eggs. That's pretty common. A few other hundred have kids allergic to fish. Some adjuvant in shots are fish oil based. Then there are all the moms of autistic children who believe (although the government denies) that there is a link between Mercury and Autism, and that Thermisol can worsen their children's condition. In other cases, there are situations where vaccines can cause adverse reactions to other ingredients too, like polysorbate. Each child is different, and that is why vaccines are very dangerous. All people are different and so generally medicating everyone the same for everything isn't medically sane.

    The issue isn't so much when there is a regular emergency. Usually people can still opt out. But in a big emergency, this bill has a lot of negative potential. Time and time again there have been incidents (every time actually) where a crisis has led to an area being policed or marshaled, but they do not take a person's situation 1 by 1.
  • bones327 possibl... 2010/11/26 23:18:56
    bones327
    +1
    Sounds like a class action suit with all people allergic to the vaccine components being eligible to be members of the class.
  • Autarchic 2010/11/26 12:24:49
    Yes they can sue the state for a state law.
    Autarchic
    You have never seen a state, it only exists in your mind. You only see people claiming to represent the state.
  • bones327 Autarchic 2010/11/26 14:01:31
    bones327
    +1
    I guess you think you're funny, offering such an inane answer to a serious question. Get a clue. No one appreciates an a-hole.
  • Autarchic bones327 2010/11/26 14:40:28
    Autarchic
    I think you're the one that's funny. The reason being, you're as ignorant as a box of rocks!
  • bones327 Autarchic 2010/11/26 16:16:28
    bones327
    +1
    You don't know me and, obviously, you have not read my other posts, here or elsewhere. I answered the legal questions posed below, whereas you simply posted your a$$hole-osity.
  • Autarchic bones327 2010/11/26 16:54:43
    Autarchic
    Evidently you do not practice what you preach either. You have posted 44 subjects, while I have posted 1402. It is evident that you did not do what you claim I that I do not do. Calling someone names that you do not know, is a sign that you're not very bright. So, why don't you just quit while you're ahead!
  • bones327 Autarchic 2010/11/26 17:15:19
    bones327
    +2
    I could best you at anything, with half my brain tied behind my back. Just because you post tripe does not make you smart. It only means you have more time on your hands with which you do absolutely nothing productive.
  • possibl... bones327 2010/11/26 18:04:11
    possiblymaybe
    Hi! peace love don't fight LD
  • possibl... Autarchic 2010/11/26 18:03:55
    possiblymaybe
    +1
    Hey hey hey peace love :D
  • possibl... bones327 2010/11/26 18:03:44
    possiblymaybe
    Be easy peace love :D
  • possibl... Autarchic 2010/11/26 18:03:29
    possiblymaybe
    +1
    Hey boys play nice :D
  • possibl... bones327 2010/11/26 18:03:14
    possiblymaybe
    Thanks for the defense, but I understand Furman has a certain view of things that I understand when he "says without saying"... No worries.
  • possibl... Autarchic 2010/11/26 18:02:24
    possiblymaybe
    +1
    Mr philosophy lmao. I understand where you are coming from but I'm a mom and in emergencies, some laws say they can use deadly force to make a person comply. That's FAHKED. "Kill your kid or I will kill you... and then probably kill your kid anyhow."<<<<
  • Bob 2010/11/26 11:17:17
    Yes they can sue the state for a state law.
    Bob
    In the broad term yes a state can be sued. If you were to google "right to sue the state of Massachusetts" you can see suits which have been filed against the state. Other approaches could be to challange the state's or/and federal constitutionality of such a law; or sue to validate the fact that a pandemic is infact existant, with appropriate injunctions until all court actions can be concluded. As for suing before a bill or action is taken, most doubtful other than working the phones against the legislature, because there can be no case until there is a reason to bring suit. In other words, one can't sue when there is no action or purpose to sue against.

    Biggest problem with suing the state is; they use your own money to fight you in court with, they have staff lawyers, But often hire firms to fight the battles out who can end up costing the plaintiffs a vast sum of lawyer money while they (the gov't) use your taxes to defend the "states" position. So, be sure you can find some fantastic lawyers who are opposed to the shots who would be willing to fight it Pro Bono for you and or Lawyers who conduct suits on behalf of groups who oppose state or governmental actions.
  • bones327 Bob 2010/11/26 14:00:16
    bones327
    +1
    The issue of whether the claimants' attorneys, in what is tantamount to a class action lawsuit, need to be working "pro bono publico" (for the public good) or if prospective attorneys could expect to get paid, if they win, could be a factor in whether you can find lawyers willing to invest the thousands of hours of time for such work. How often do you you work thousands of hours and not expect to get paid? Who do you know that could afford to spend so much productive time, over the course of years and not expect to get paid? I don't know anyone who could do that and I have been a lawyer for 25 years.

    Fortunately, if one sues a state or a subdivision of a state over the constitutionality of a law, if you win, you can expect to get the court to order the state to pay your lawyer's fees.

    I have been involved in 2 such cases. Both times we beat the laws, which were declared unconstitutional and both times, the court awarded attorney fees. Once this was done in federal court and one case, which goes to the attorney fee hearing soon (next week), is in state court. At the end of the day, you have to prove: how much time was spent in the case; what is a reasonable fee for a lawyer with your lawyer's level of experience; and, how complicated to handle were the legal issues of the case (d...
    The issue of whether the claimants' attorneys, in what is tantamount to a class action lawsuit, need to be working "pro bono publico" (for the public good) or if prospective attorneys could expect to get paid, if they win, could be a factor in whether you can find lawyers willing to invest the thousands of hours of time for such work. How often do you you work thousands of hours and not expect to get paid? Who do you know that could afford to spend so much productive time, over the course of years and not expect to get paid? I don't know anyone who could do that and I have been a lawyer for 25 years.

    Fortunately, if one sues a state or a subdivision of a state over the constitutionality of a law, if you win, you can expect to get the court to order the state to pay your lawyer's fees.

    I have been involved in 2 such cases. Both times we beat the laws, which were declared unconstitutional and both times, the court awarded attorney fees. Once this was done in federal court and one case, which goes to the attorney fee hearing soon (next week), is in state court. At the end of the day, you have to prove: how much time was spent in the case; what is a reasonable fee for a lawyer with your lawyer's level of experience; and, how complicated to handle were the legal issues of the case (did the case go up on appeal)? Based on this documentation and the testimony of expert witnesses, the court will apply the "lodestar" method of calculating the fees the lawyers are entitled to recover for having performed this work. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    (more)
  • possibl... bones327 2010/11/26 18:10:43
    possiblymaybe
    Do the claimants pay the attorney up front or only if the case loses?
  • bones327 possibl... 2010/11/26 23:25:40
    bones327
    Lawyers would take their fees at the end of the game
  • possibl... bones327 2010/11/26 23:35:22
    possiblymaybe
    Thanks for the information.
  • possibl... Bob 2010/11/26 18:07:45 (edited)
    possiblymaybe
    What I meant by NO ACTION is, I think the bill is PASSED except, it hasn't been enacted because they did not declare a 'state of emergency' but, in the event they ever did; they could potentially kill thousands of babies with "emergency response" so... I feel really bad for moms who's kids issue is severe. My sons would probably absorb a shot and be fine, due to extremely durable genetics and good health. They've bounced back from some harsh allergies and situations. But other moms, hundreds... maybe thousands... can't be so confident. Some are stuck here too, can't afford to move in the recession. And very concerned because some of the drugs could be fatal allergy, or long term brain damage. Each kid is different. Is there any way to proceed that would work?

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/07/23 22:13:56

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals