This is a discussion post in my class. I do not agree with it. How would you respond to this post? 

Do you agree with the court's decision in Jacobson?

The decision that was made in this case was based on fairness and the general concern for the wellbeing of the public. I understand why Jacobson tried to fight the mandatory vaccine for smallpox but there were also stated exceptions for children, those unfit to receive it, and by excluding those that were previously vaccinated after 1897. When concluding this case, Jacobson simply did not provide subtenant evidence that proved why the vaccine does not need to be mandated for the greater good of the public. Even with the fine of $5 for not receiving the vaccine, the defendant even refused the offer made by the Board of Health to receive it during court. In the end, the Supreme Court overruled the exceptions made for the defendant and sentenced the original fine to be paid which brought the case to a final decision that was made in fairness for any individual who refused the mandated vaccine.

Considering the concept of federalism, what role, if any, does the Tenth Amendment play in defining the powers of federal and state governments?

The Tenth Amendment involves the relationship between federal government powers and the powers reserved for the states by having the ability to impose affirmative limitations on said power (Cornell Law School, n.d.). By being invoked implicitly or explicitly, Congress uses the principles of federalism in this amendment to invalidate federal statutes. This in turn, shows how it can be applied in certain circumstances over others by the Supreme Court's jurisprudence.