Haxxed only please

[l0053g0053]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The monetary amount is irrelevant to the law itself as extant.

I bet you feel pretty silly right now.

A living document! :3

Jacobson also made a surprise appearance in a very different context.
Recall that the Jacobson Court suggested that the statute should not apply
in circumstances where doing so would be inhumane.105

The second group of citations involved abortion. In Roe v. Wade, as
well as a companion case, Jacobson was cited as proof that the Constitution
does not recognize an absolute right to control one’s own body.129

https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/vie...9&context=sdlr

What lessons can be distilled from this history? In most modern cases,
references to Jacobson were perfunctory, often as part of a string of citations,
giving the Court little reason for careful thought about the precedent’s
implications.134 The Supreme Court seems not to have thought of Jacobson
as establishing a special rule for contagious diseases or providing a specific
test for constitutionality.

sorry for deits

III. JACOBSON IN THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC
By the beginning of this century, Jacobson was a relatively obscure case
except to specialists in public health.139 The coronavirus pandemic brought
the century-old ruling into the limelight.140 Courts have not been able to
agree, however, on just what the case means for emergency public health
regulations. This dispute has led to circuit splits in cases dealing with
restrictions on abortions and religious gatherings.141 The issues in these
two categories of cases are somewhat different, so they will be discussed
separately below.

page 847 interesting.

[Basanos]

Originally Posted by magnetaress [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All of my individual human cells all each have their own rights. Wrote that here.

The computing power required simply to count votes on election day will probably take us up a notch on the Kardashev scale

[magnetaress]

These rights no longer come innately or from g-d tho. They come from a court which sometimes is compliant especially to the richer dude and also the military industry cuz of a peices of paper which now has super subjective interpretations.

[magnetaress]

Originally Posted by Basanos [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The computing power required simply to count votes on election day will probably take us up a notch on the Kardashev scale

Well. Actually they all do vote. It's electoral tho.

[Basanos]

Representative democracy of the human body

Each system sends delegates... I don't know where I am going with this

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by l0053g0053 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A living document! :3





https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/vie...9&context=sdlr





sorry for deits

III. JACOBSON IN THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC
By the beginning of this century, Jacobson was a relatively obscure case
except to specialists in public health.139 The coronavirus pandemic brought
the century-old ruling into the limelight.140 Courts have not been able to
agree, however, on just what the case means for emergency public health
regulations. This dispute has led to circuit splits in cases dealing with
restrictions on abortions and religious gatherings.141 The issues in these
two categories of cases are somewhat different, so they will be discussed
separately below.

page 847 interesting.

Couple that with the fact they didn't use the Jacobson framework to 'mandate' the Covid vaccines and show me your balls, bro.

They still could have but didn't is the point.

[l0053g0053]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Couple that with the fact they didn't use the Jacobson framework to 'mandate' the Covid vaccines and show me your balls, bro.

They still could have but didn't is the point.

If they attempted to do that the constitutionality would have a framework to be argued against. Going in all retarded was the best bet. Current supreme court would LOVE To argue that. (in 20 years)

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by l0053g0053 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If they attempted to do that the constitutionality would have a framework to be argued against. Going in all retarded was the best bet. Current supreme court would LOVE To argue that. (in 20 years)

Sure, but because they didn't, the ruling stands.

Maybe why?

[magnetaress]

Ur brain is a wave. Conciousness doesn't arise from a single point. U exist within a wave. Ppl behave in predictable ways. Those waves can interact and interfere. Shit gets really weird at this point. It's no longer so digital as counting. Your body isn't really yours. Your just along for the ride. You will seee. Eventually a new body will form and it will hear the birds and wolves and crickets and ocean and the new brain will hummm and sing with hormones crying out...

"Muh rights"!!111

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by magnetaress [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ur brain is a wave. Conciousness doesn't arise from a single point. U exist within a wave. Ppl behave in predictable ways. Those waves can interact and interfere. Shit gets really weird at this point. It's no longer so digital as counting. Your body isn't really yours. Your just along for the ride. You will seee. Eventually a new body will form and it will hear the birds and wolves and crickets and ocean and the new brain will hummm and sing with hormones crying out...

"Muh rights"!!111

You won't crack my egg but maybe you can get the goose. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]