Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 5104198" data-attributes="member: 63706">Oh boy. You realize that is one of the BIG three worst decisions ever made along with Buck and Koramatsu, right? The decision only affirmed State&#039;s police power (the power to make laws), and didn&#039;t address the constitutionality of the particular law. They chose not to actually address whether or not the state could insinuate itself into people&#039;s medical decisions. The main difference between that decision and what people are facing today is that Massachusettes gave people the option to pay a fine rather than get the vaccine. The fine was what Jacobson was challenging. He ended up paying the fine (roughly $170 in today&#039;s money), and still not taking the vaccine. The fourth amendment affirms our right to be secure in our person. From the case below comes this decision: “No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.”[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250[/URL]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 5104198, member: 63706"] Oh boy. You realize that is one of the BIG three worst decisions ever made along with Buck and Koramatsu, right? The decision only affirmed State's police power (the power to make laws), and didn't address the constitutionality of the particular law. They chose not to actually address whether or not the state could insinuate itself into people's medical decisions. The main difference between that decision and what people are facing today is that Massachusettes gave people the option to pay a fine rather than get the vaccine. The fine was what Jacobson was challenging. He ended up paying the fine (roughly $170 in today's money), and still not taking the vaccine. The fourth amendment affirms our right to be secure in our person. From the case below comes this decision: “No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless [B]by clear[/B] [B]and unquestionable [/B]authority of law.” [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Verification