Your thoughts as to the question whether it is "reasonable regulations" may be a credible way to legally challenge the vaxx. Who gets to decide what is a "reasonable regulation". It cannot be the DOJ, but a Judge.

I'm beginning to believe the 1905 SCOTUS decision: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the case the vaXXers love to reference is the same as Roes v. Wade decision. Both these decisions were rife with toxic legal inputs that outputted a toxic decision.

Attorney Jonathan Emord looks at the history of compulsory vaccination, and shows how it was the Chief Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who stripped away 14th Amendment rights in regards to compulsory vaccination, the very same judge who ruled in favor of forced sterilization which was supported by the “science” of that day, eugenics. Eugenics is the same “science” used by the Nazis in Germany to endorse eliminating “feeble-minded” people in favor of a “master race.”

We see comparably repulsive favoritism for ending the lives of others with whom he harbored disdain in a decision by Holmes holding forced sterilization constitutional under the 14th Amendment, the infamous 1927 decision of Buck v. Bell. In that decision, Holmes wrote that it was within the rightful power of the state to:

“prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” He crudely added, “the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

People ought to attack Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. as a racist and bigot, who believed in Nazi style eugenics. In other words, attack the man who gave us Jacobson v. Massachusetts and allowed our predicament today fighting compulsory vaccination.

Quote from C.S. Lewis:

“I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in.”

Your thoughts as to the question whether it is "reasonable regulations" may be a credible way to legally challenge the vaxx. Who gets to decide what is a "reasonable regulation". It cannot be the DOJ, but a Judge.

I'm beginning to believe the 1905 SCOTUS decision: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the case the vaXXers love to reference is the same as Roes v. Wade decision. Both these decisions were rife with toxic legal inputs that outputted a toxic decision.

Attorney Jonathan Emord looks at the history of compulsory vaccination, and shows how it was the Chief Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who stripped away 14th Amendment rights in regards to compulsory vaccination, the very same judge who ruled in favor of forced sterilization which was supported by the “science” of that day, eugenics. Eugenics is the same “science” used by the Nazis in Germany to endorse eliminating “feeble-minded” people in favor of a “master race.”

We see comparably repulsive favoritism for ending the lives of others with whom he harbored disdain in a decision by Holmes holding forced sterilization constitutional under the 14th Amendment, the infamous 1927 decision of Buck v. Bell. In that decision, Holmes wrote that it was within the rightful power of the state to:

“prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” He crudely added, “the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

People ought to attack Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. as a racist and bigot, who believed in Nazi style eugenics. In other words, attack the man who gave us Jacobson v. Massachusetts and allowed our predicament today fighting compulsory vaccination.

Your thoughts as to the question whether it is "reasonable regulations" may be a credible way to legally challenge the vaxx. Who gets to decide what is a "reasonable regulation". It cannot be the DOJ, but a Judge.

I'm beginning to believe the 1905 SCOTUS decision: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the case the vaXXers love to reference is the same as Roes v. Wade decision. Both these decisions were rife with toxic legal inputs that outputted a toxic decision.

Attorney Emord looks at the history of compulsory vaccination, and shows how it was the Chief Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who stripped away 14th Amendment rights in regards to compulsory vaccination, the very same judge who ruled in favor of forced sterilization which was supported by the “science” of that day, eugenics. Eugenics is the same “science” used by the Nazis in Germany to endorse eliminating “feeble-minded” people in favor of a “master race.”

We see comparably repulsive favoritism for ending the lives of others with whom he harbored disdain in a decision by Holmes holding forced sterilization constitutional under the 14th Amendment, the infamous 1927 decision of Buck v. Bell. In that decision, Holmes wrote that it was within the rightful power of the state to:

“prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” He crudely added, “the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

People ought to attack Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. as a racist and bigot, who believed in Nazi style eugenics. In other words, attack the man who gave us Jacobson v. Massachusetts and allowed our predicament today fighting compulsory vaccination.