Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations?

quote:

---

Your analysis is abbreviated to the point where it is inaccurate.

---

Or accurate to the point where it disagrees with you.

quote:

---

The right to privacy is described as depending on the first, fourth, and fifth amendments in very explicit terms in the quote I provided.

---

That simply isn't true. The longer quote gives the impression that there are a number of derivations of a "right to privacy" and none specifically list only the "first, fourth and fifth" amendments.

quote:

---

You are also failing to note that multiple cases are cited for the 4th amendment (Terry, Katz, Boyd, Ohlmsted)

---

Not at all. I do however note that no case invokes the 4th Amendment alone, although there are cases described in the quote as deriving a right to privacy from each of the 1st, 9th and 14th Amendments alone.

quote:

---

The fourth amendment is also invoked in the citation of Griswold. Griswold cites the 4th, 5th and 9th amendments as providing a right to marital privacy.

---

Although the judges seem to view the 14th as the most important, even there. Griswold vs Connecticut

quote:

---

The 14th amendment provides for due process, but it does not describe the rights which are protected by the due process

---

Aren't you arguing that rights don't have to be mentioned in the Constitution ? (Which is true, but because of the 9th Amendment).

quote:

---

The ninth amendment provides the citizens have rights that are not spelled out in the constitution but does nothing to spell out what those rights actually are.

---

If it did, they would be spelled out in the Constitution. So obviously it doesn't - it would be self-defeating. The whole point is to allow for rights not spelled out in the Constitution - so if the 9th Amendment was limited to rights it spelled out, it would be useless.

Well, I'm pretty much back where I started. Those who see serious enough problems with the vaccines, based on the many personal reports that have been collected of such problems, aren't willing to consider that the diseases would be worse, and are upset at my raising the issue. I didn't push it, but just raising it is enough. They object to so many being given, and to the bundling of so many, among other things, but most of all they are impressed with the many stories of autism resulting from vaccinations, and there are a lot of such stories. And I can't just say they're wrong, how could I know?Yes, thanks, it wasn't encephalitis that was targeted by a vaccine but the measles that may lead to it.

I can and will. They're wrong.And yes, you could know. It just takes a little study.

No, your characterization was factually inaccurate, and sloppy to the point where your errors were not just nits, they are a large part of your argument. For example, when you said that the fourth amendment was only mentioned once in connection with the penumbra of the bill of rights, that was completely wrong. Penumbra was attached only to the mention of the Griswold case. The explicit mention of the fourth amendment was to four other cases.And when we actually look at the text of the Griswold case we see that the court used the fourth, fifth and ninth amendments to find a right of privacy associated with the use of condoms by married couples that the state could not interfere with. Nothing remotely related to search and seizure. We also find that the fourth amendment was called out as supporting a right to privacy in multiple other cases.Further penumbra means that the court is finding a right that is not explicitly stated, but that is found in the shadow cast by the explicit rights like the first, fourth, and fifth. In short the term penumbra is supportive of the argument that there is a right of privacy that is not strictly textual and not some kind of weakness in that argument.These things are easily found in the literature discussing the history of Roe v. Wade, but you are apparently unfamiliar with that. And then you ignore explicitly words in Brown v. People which actually describe the manner in which the court reaches it's decision.So, no, PaulK, it is not a matter of you being right. You clearly mischaracterized the language in People v Brown and Roe v Wade while substituting your own opinion for them. It's pretty clear that at least according to the court decisions we've talked about, that the penumbra of the 4th amendment extend beyond searches and seizures. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

In the case of the right to privacy, I'm saying that rights are suggested by the rights that are enumerated. If the court solely relies on the 9th and 14th, then they have to make up the rights from extra-constitutional sources. But that is not the approach taken in either People v Brown or Roe v Wade. Instead the 14th and 9th amendment are used to give life to a penumbra of rights suggested by the 1, 4, and 5th amendments. The 9th amendment is the opening for finding unwritten rights and the due process clause applies those rights to the states. In cases limiting federal power, the 14th amendment is not cited and the federal due process clause of the 5th amendment can be used.This argument is not original with me, and I find it surprising that an advocate of the constitution such as yourself has not come across it before. That line of argument is conventional used by people who advocate for privacy rights, including my professor in law school and con law experts like Erwin Chemerinsky whose text we used in the course‎, although it is controversial in some quarters. Certainly Justices like Scalia despise the approach as do lots of social conservatives. But in the case of Roe v Wade and Griswold, that side did not win the day. For now anyway.But disagreeing with the line of argument is one thing. Saying that you cannot even find the conventional lines of support for the argument in the case law is something different again. And that's what I see you doing. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, I agree completely. We disagree about what more we ought to do next. Surely that's clear.

Sigh,That isn't just my claim. The judge writes in the opinion he is recognizing a privacy right that the witness cannot find under a conventional application of the fourth amendment.I did not make up the terms limitation on bodily intrusion. That comes from the case. Yes, that is the error I made. But beside making that error, the problem is that it is not strictly true anymore. In the case of the 4th amendment, there is some recognition that allowing defendant's to challenge 3rd party rights violations is a valid check on police misconduct, and so the defendant might well be able to raise it.In any event, if it is not clear, I already conceded that this line of argument was wrong.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, your characterization was factually inaccurate, and sloppy to the point where your errors were not just nits, they are a large part of your argument. For example, when you said that the fourth amendment was only mentioned once in connection with the penumbra of the bill of rights, that was completely wrong

---

The fact that you have to resort to misrepresentation to identify "errors" only proves my point. That statement referred only to the short quote dealing with the characterisation of the case and it is completely true.As to the rest I will simply note that even if what you said is completely true (and quite frankly dealing with all your many misrepresentations has taken far too much time already) there is a long distance between resolving a case on the 14th Amendment and the penumbra if the 1st, 4th and 5th and resolving it on the 4th Amendment alone.

quote:

---

n the case of the right to privacy, I'm saying that rights are suggested by the rights that are enumerated. If the court solely relies on the 9th and 14th, then they have to make up the rights from extra-constitutional sources.

---

I.e I was correct to say that the rights are not directly granted by the other Amendments (even in combination) because if they were there would br no need to invoke the 9th, or to make the 14th the primary issue.

quote:

---

That isn't just my claim. The judge writes in the opinion he is recognizing a privacy right that the witness cannot find under a conventional application of the fourth amendment.

---

I would suggest that the issue in the case is primarily one of identifying which searches are to be considered unreasonable. That is an issue for case law.I cannot see anything suggesting otherwise and you have offered nothing either.

Have you read all those personal statements, such as at this site? That's a lot of people claiming serious adverse reactions to vaccinations. I'm sure I could find research that claims adverse effects are statistically minimal or even worth it, but I'm not going to find anything that tells me if any of the claims made by those particular parents are accurate or not, and that's what I can't say is wrong for sure. I'd risk the vaccinations myself, but I can see why some don't want to take that risk.

What isn't clear is what you think we ought to do next. You seem to be arguing against everything that anybody suggests.

I gave you CDC links to some way at the start of the thread.One of my coworkers had his entire family quarentined this last week for whooping cough. I haven't asked, but I wonder if he bothered to get shots for his preschool kids? When I had that crap, back before they had a vaccine for it, I was greatly displeased.

That's not true.The only thing I've argued against is mandatory vaccinations not tied to something like taking advantage of a public program. Before we take that step I'd like to see loop holes like religious reasons and similar objections closed. One thing I have suggested is closing all of the exceptions that are currently granted that are known to be constitutional disfavored. I even pointed to a couple of states that come close to doing that.If people have suggested anything other than the one thing I've objected to, I haven't said anything to them. And because I've spent much of my time arguing with PaulK, it is likely that I haven't even seen such suggestions.

I did some thinking about the best way to continue to discuss this.Here is a way of looking at the cases that you might find closer to being acceptable, or at least less objectional. In increasing order of controversy...People v Brown, the judge uses the "unreasonable" requirement of the 4th amendment to craft a "bodily integrity" rule that applies to witnesses in search and seizure cases. I don't think there is any way to read this case any narrower.The Roe v Wade cites a number of cases to describe a personal right to privacy that extends to situations that are not search and seizure. Those situations include the use of contraceptives by married people. The 4th amendment was used in part to support that right to privacy and to support the holding in Roe v Wade. However, the ruling was a consensus and not every Justice agreed with every provision.That said, the privacy right described in Roe v Wade was used in future cases.I would further argue, although it is not presented in the case that when we look at the provisions first, fourth, fifth, and nineth amendment, that the crafted rights bear a much closer resemblance to the provisions in the fourth amendment than they do to any of the other candidates.In short, the ninth and fourteenth amendment are important, but they play absolutely no part in deciding the scope of the right that the court will recognize.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.