Quarantine Constitutionality?

Quarantine Constitutionality
by Steven D. Miller

Is now the last chance to secure the blessings of liberty? Is resistance futile because you have been assimilated? How can it be constitutional to hold innocent people under house arrest? Join me as we ponder these questions.

Before you decide to stand up to the police state you should prepare to give an answer to the constitutionality issues.

  • Did your State impair the obligation of contracts?
  • Did your State Congress grant legislative powers to the Governor?
  • Do your Governor’s executive orders apply only to his/her employees?
  • Is the U.S. Constitution the Supreme Law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound thereby?
  • Is every inhabitant in your State guaranteed a republic form of government?
  • Did you State prohibit the free exercise of religion?

Twenty-seven scientific studies prove that Lockdowns do not work. (Link)

Governments are instituted among men to secure the blessings of liberty. They also have the right (as does anyone else1) to prevent deaths by interfering in private affairs. Just as you have the right to enter a burning home without permission, or enter a home when someone is screaming for help.

There is no conflict between these two government duties.  Government can both secure the blessings of liberty and protect rights.2 They can do both even during a crisis. They can do this the way it was always done. With quarantine zones, imposed in dense municipalities, to confine the disease.

Liberty Bell is inscribed with Leviticus 25:10
Leviticus 25:10 Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land.

They could also do this with quarantine zones around the most vulnerable. Stanford University’s Hoover Institute published an article explaining that shutting down the economy is not necessary. All we need to do is protect the most vulnerable. Link: https://www.hoover.org/research/playing-politics-coronavirus


This authority is called by various names like “police power”, “compelling state interest”, “overriding governmental interest”, “exigent circumstances”, “clear and present danger doctrine”.  Government has a legitimate function that can trump your right to liberty. They can protect an innocent person from grave and immediate danger.

COVID Vaccines Cannot Be Mandatory Under Emergency Use Authorization. Link: Memo-reCOVIDVaccinationMandate-May2021.pdf (lcaction.org)

The ruse that you are a danger to someone, without evidence, does not justify loss of liberty.

COV-2 filled exosomes budding from a lung tissue cell.

According to the Supreme Court, “… freedoms of speech and of press, of assembly, and of worship may not be infringed on such slender grounds. They are susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect” (This phrase was used in many Supreme Court decisions to protect your rights. Carrol v. Princess Anne 393 U.S. 175, Thomas v. Collins 323 U.S. 516, West Virginia v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, in re Brown 9 Cal.3d 612, West’s Constitutional law, key 84, 90, 91 — etc.)


The 1905 United States Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts 197 US 11, concerned an emergency smallpox epidemic where people were dying, and quarantine zones were enforced in Boston. Mr. Jacobson, who had previously been injured by a childhood vaccination, and who raised no religious objections, raised ONLY the Constitutional question of equal protection, and who did not ask for a hearing, was given the option paying the $5 fine (a tax, if you want to use the Obamacare comparison) to remain unvaccinated inside the emergency quarantine zone. The $5 fine applied to anyone over the age of 21. Mr. Jacobson argued that he was denied equal protection because children were exempted from the fine. The Supreme Court determined “this cannot be deemed a denial of the equal protection of the laws to adults; for the statute is applicable equally to all in like condition, and there are obviously reasons why regulations may be appropriate for adults which could not be safely applied to persons of tender years.”

That’s right! The Supreme Court decision that States rely upon as their only authority to force vaccines on children, actually says vaccines are NOT for children. They also ruled that during a smallpox outbreak children would be kept out of public schools until vaccinated.

A law textbook, Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 8th Edition, page 1229 quotes this very same Supreme Court Jacobson quarantine decision as proof of the opposite of what your government now says. It concludes:

“The police power is not supreme and is not unlimited. It is subject to the limitations imposed by the Federal Constitution upon every power of government. It will not be suffered to invade or impair the fundamental liberties of the citizen”

That’s right: “fundamental liberties” cannot be impaired by quarantine laws.  Why do we find our fundamental liberties eliminated — from government overreach to a mild disease?  Yes; it is a mild disease. Smallpox killed 30% of those who contracted it.  Yet COVID-19 only kills 5% of those who are sick enough to be hospitalized, most of which have at least two co-morbid underlying conditions.  And many infected people never had any symptoms at all.

Image: The Plague In Rome by Jules Elie Delaunay, painted in 1869


Let’s examine some of the “fundamental liberties” that cannot be impaired by police powers during a quarantine.

Law Textbook Definition of Liberty

Back when we had a Constitutional system of government, everyone knew we could get out of our house and exercise “the fundamental laws of our being”.

A Treatise of the Right to Personal Liberty, Second Edition, Book 1, Chapter 1, Section 1.
Rollin C. Hurd, 1876, W.C. Little Co., Albany, NY
Supreme Court’s definition of Liberty.

The US Supreme Court waited for a homeschool case to give us their partial definition of Liberty. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399:

The term Liberty “… denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience… the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect.”


Can it be constitutional to hold an innocent person under house arrest? I don’t know how the courts will rule, but you may want to know the foundations of liberty.

When the republic is in extreme danger of extinction, the law allows a magistrate absolute authority. This law existed in ancient Rome.

Blackstone’s Commentary on the Laws was the 1765 preeminent law textbook used when the United States was created. In the introduction to unalienable rights it says:

“…to imprison suspected persons without giving any reason for so doing; as the senate of Rome was wont to have recourse to a dictator, a magistrate of absolute authority, when they judged the republic in any imminent danger. The decree of the senate, which usually preceded the nomination of this magistrate, “dent operam consules, ne quid respublica detrimenti capiat,” was called the senatus consultum ultimae necessitatis. In like manner, this experiment ought only to be tried in cases of extreme emergency; and in these the nation parts with it’s liberty for a while, in order to preserve it for ever.

The confinement of the person, in any wise, is an imprisonment. So that the keeping a man against his will in a private house, putting him in the stocks, arresting or forcibly detaining him in the street, is an imprisonment. And the law so much discourages unlawful confinement, that if a man is under duress of imprisonment, which we before explained to mean a compulsion by an illegal restraint of liberty, until he seals a bond or the like; he may allege this duress, and avoid the extorted bond. But if a man be lawfully imprisoned, and either to procure his discharge, or any other fair account, seals a bond or a deed, this is not by duress of imprisonment, and he is not at liberty to avoid it. To make imprisonment lawful, it must either be by process from the courts of judicature, or by warrant from some legal officer having authority to commit to prison; which warrant must be in writing, under the hand and seal of the magistrate, and express the causes of the commitment, in order to be examined into (if necessary) upon a habeas corpus. 22 If there be no cause expressed, the jailer is not bound to detain the prisoner. For the law judges in this respect, saith sir Edward Coke, like Festus the Roman governor; that it is unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not to signify withal the crimes alleged against him.”
22. General warrants, commanding the seizure of any persons not named, or whose offence is not particularly described, . . .


The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence says that the laws of nature entitles the United States to exist. This very same laws of nature tells us:

Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege naturae utendum est.
When laws of the state fail, we must resort to the laws of nature.

Also see John Locke’s 1690 Second Treatise of Government paragraphs 135, 149, 171, 209.


No, not virus remedies. Legal remedies.

Deprivation of liberty under the color of law is a CRIME,  at least for 14th Amendment citizens.

Courts award large compensatory damages for deprivation of liberty.  See my essay on How much is your liberty worth?

Insightful Quotes

“… And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
— Thomas Jefferson on November 13, 1787 letter to future Congressman William S. Smith

“Let your motto be resistance! Resistance! No oppressed people have ever secured their liberty without resistance.”
– Abolitionist Henry Highland Garnet

You know James Otis for his slogan “Taxation without representation is tyranny”.  He wrote The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved in 1764:

“But if every prince since Nimrod had been a tyrant, it would not prove a right to tyranize. There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the law of nature, and the grant of God almighty; who has given to all men a natural right to be free, and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so, if they please.”

Thomas Jefferson’s inscription on his ring:
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”

US Supreme Court, Laird v. Tatum, 408 US 1, page 28:

“This case involves a cancer in our body politic. It is a measure of the disease which afflicts us. … Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our heritage. The Constitution was designed to keep the government off the backs of the people. … The Bill of Rights was designed to keep agents of government and official eavesdroppers away from assemblies of people. The aim was to allow men to be free and independent and to assert their rights against government. … When an intelligence officer looks over every nonconformist’s shoulder… the America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian image …”

But we now find out that it is a crime to peacefully assemble to petition government for redress of grievance. In a fictional place that can again become the land of the free.

— — — —

1. Law of necessity is a maxim of law: Illud quod alias licitum non est, necessitas facit licitum, et necessitas privilegium quod jure privatur. That which is not otherwise lawful, necessity makes lawful; and necessity brings in as a privilege what is denied by right.

2. After all, Ben Franklin once wrote that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin, November 11, 1755; Reply to the Governor. This is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the Statute of Liberty.

— — — —

You may also be interested in my posts on COVID-19:

Can Face Masks Stop a Virus?
Pandemic or Dem-panic?
WHO is behind the Plan-demic?
Can 5G cause Coronavirus?
Can a Governor keep you from Working?
27 scientific studies prove that lockdowns do  not work.
Will COVID vaccines genetically modify you?
Are coronavirus asymptomatic individuals contagious?
The Rockefeller COVID-19 plan for control of population
COVID Virus Bailout
Quarantine Constitutionality?

– – – – –

– – – – –

Steven D. Miller is a freelance copywriter producing informative blog posts, white papers, eBooks and high-density documentaries. He is available on a limited basis to offer hope to any audience that yearns to breathe free. Contact him at Steven.Miller@LibertyContentWriter.com  

The three things that are abhorrent to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There are only three things that are abhorrent in the USA according to the U.S. Supreme Court: Identification Credentials, forced oaths, and forced confessions.

Do not be fooled into thinking that these things are required by the same government that proclaims them to be abhorrent.

By the way, a signature under penalty of perjury is a forced oath. A forced perjury oath.

Identification Credentials

US Supreme Court Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964):

“Free movement by the citizen is of course as dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly and it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interests of security. … That is why the ticketing of people and the use of identification papers are routine matters under totalitarian regimes, yet abhorrent in the United States…

Freedom of movement, at home and abroad, is important for job and business opportunities – for cultural, [378 U.S. 500, 520] political, and social activities – for all the commingling which gregarious man enjoys. Those with the right of free movement use it at times for mischievous purposes. But that is true of many liberties we enjoy. We nevertheless place our faith in them, and against restraint, knowing that the risk of abusing liberty so as to give rise to punishable conduct is part of the price we pay for this free society. ..

Freedom of movement is kin to the right of assembly and to the right of association. These rights may not be abridged, …”

… Absent war, I see no way to keep a citizen from traveling within or without the country, unless there is power to detain him. Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 . And no authority to detain exists except under extreme conditions, e. g., unless he has been convicted of a crime or unless there is probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest by standards of the Fourth Amendment. This freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful – knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking. Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer, …”

U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429, quoted part of an Arizona case Ekstrom v. Justice Court, 136 Ariz. 1: Here is the more complete quote:

The issue here, therefore, is whether the fourth amendment permits officers to stop and question persons whose conduct is innocent, unremarkable and free from suspicion. The question has frightening implications. The thought that an American can be compelled to “show his papers” before exercising his right to walk the streets, drive the highways or board the trains is repugnant to American institutions and ideals.”

By the way, the 1803 Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, determined that the elected officers in Washington DC could not be issued government credentials proving who they were.

That’s right! They could not be issued any stinking government badges.  Maybe you can take your case up to the Supreme Court and get Marbury v. Madison overturned. But you want it overturned for a different reason than the lawyers expect — the Marbury case was also used to justify the groundless theory that judges can interpret the law.

Compelled testimony

Back in 1956 the Supreme Court determined in Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 that punishments like loss of a job, or ineligibility for a passport are penalties for criminal acts, and now the same punishments are automatic until you are compelled to deny religious liberty.

“The forfeiture of property on compelled testimony is no more abhorrent than the forfeiture of rights of citizenship. Any forfeiture of rights as a result of compelled testimony is at war with the Fifth Amendment.
”The Court apparently distinguishes the Boyd case on the ground that the forfeiture of property was a penalty affixed to a criminal act. The loss of a job and the ineligibility for a passport are also penalties affixed to a criminal act.

In 1886 the U.S. Supreme Court in Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616, at page 632 explained that

any compulsory discovery by extorting the party’s oath… is contrary to the principles of a free government … it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power, but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom.”


In 1966 the U.S. Supreme Court’s Miranda v. Arizona decision, 384 U.S. 436 at page 459, acknowledged that Miranda’s famous right to remain silent comes from a long history of resistance to oaths.

In the student flag salute case Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624, The Supreme Court said that:

“Such a statutory exaction is a form of test oath, and the test oath has always been abhorrent in the United States.”

The U.S Supreme Court in Girouard v. U.S., 328 U.S. 61 (1946):

The victory for freedom of thought recorded in our Bill of Rights recognizes that in the domain of conscience there is a moral power higher than the State. Throughout the ages men have suffered death rather than subordinate their allegiance to God to the authority of the State.” …

“[t]he test oath is abhorrent to our tradition.”

* * *

These abhorrent themes are the basis for most of my content on NotFooledByGovernment.com

* * *

I will leave you with these thoughts.

May you learn about the enemy within, and relearn liberty.  And maybe you will find out why you tolerate the abhorrent.

US Supreme Court, Laird v. Tatum, 408 US 1, page 28:

This case involves a cancer in our body politic. It is a measure of the disease which afflicts us. … Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our heritage. The Constitution was designed to keep the government off the backs of the people. … The Bill of Rights was designed to keep agents of government and official eavesdroppers away from assemblies of people. The aim was to allow men to be free and independent and to assert their rights against government. … When an intelligence officer looks over every nonconformist’s shoulder… the America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian image …”

U.S. Supreme Court in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, at page 485:

“In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face

[Footnote 3] In re Pacific Railway Commission, 32 F. 241, 250, “of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.”

JAMES MADISON, speech in the Virginia Convention, June 6, 1788:

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

Dissenting Opinion in Robertson v. Department of Public Works 180 Wash 133, 39 P2d 596 (1934)
Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the “Robber Barons” and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized. If, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one by more or less rapid encroachment.”

My books on Identification Credentials, and Oaths. These provide in-depth history of our right to resist. And plenty of other authorities.

If you want a good online law course that explains procedures and rules on how to defend yourself in their courts, I recommend this self-help course: How To Win In Court.

Bill of Rights Institute http://billofrightsinstitute.org/


* Well after the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, which lawyers insist is the “proof” of judicial authority, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Mr. Jarvis dated September 25, 1820 to refute this emerging dangerous doctrine: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. … their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible as the other functionaries are, to the selective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”