Quote (sirthom @ Dec 21 2021 11:15am)
That thread was closed.
Didn't want you to think I was running away.
Here was my reply:
Ok chief, here it is.
The entire premise of the constitution is we have inalienable right that are granted by god and can not be taken away.
https://constitutionday.cpms.osd.mil/old/course2005To2008/508/course2.jpgEverything else is a guide of sorts to help us reach these goals.
I think perhaps you are to caught in legal/illegal, assuming that is the goal.
This has happened to many.
Legal/illegal are tools.
Tools used to get to what does matter, right and wrong.
So now the question becomes, is it wrong for someone to leave an agreement that only writes down rights.
Rights agreed by everyone who signed it, that was granted
only by god.
Well, is it?
There’s legal precedent here.
“So when the Cambridge board of health decided that all adults must be vaccinated for smallpox, Jacobson sought refuge in the Constitution’s promise that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
The year was 1904, and when his politically charged legal challenge to the $5 fine for failing to get vaccinated made its way to the Supreme Court, the justices had a surprise for Rev. Jacobson. One man’s liberty, they declared in a 7-2 ruling handed down the following February, cannot deprive his neighbors of their own liberty — in this case by allowing the spread of disease. Jacobson, they ruled, must abide by the order of the Cambridge board of health or pay the penalty.
“There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good,” read the majority opinion. “On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.””
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2021/09/08/vaccine-mandate-strong-supreme-court-precedent-510280This post was edited by AvanineCommuter on Dec 21 2021 10:47am