As a resource, this is the link to immunization laws by state.
critical - this is not the place.
This thread is relative to the law, and you started this line of questioning in an attempt to discredit me based on my objective point of view regarding federal income tax being voluntary and unconstitutional.
True objectivity requires that you review all relevant information without a preconceived notion of what is right. My referenced document was legal tax dispute whereby a US attorney, acting on behalf of the US Government stated that the IRS was not an agency of the government. There are thousands of these kinds of documents, and legal proceedings don't constitute conspiracy. I have studied this issue on both a Constitutional level and a Statutory level. This is why I said there is substantial evidence to support this position, and there are millions of people that disagree with you. Millions. People should be allowed to disagree without being discriminated against.
Trying to link my view of vaccines to what I may, or may not believe as it relates to the abuse of the Constitution is what I object to. Inferring a detachment from reality with nothing more than accusation of conspiracy is a tired tactic and demeans discussion. Perhaps we could agree to disagree, and leave the tactical trolling at the door.
You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong (same for myself).
If they were laws then they would apply to those that home school as well right? So in reality they aren't laws but rules pertaining to entry into an educational facility. There is a huge difference.
I can not speak for any state other than Virginia (because that is where I was living when I looked into this issue and have not gone beyond that because I am not going to homeschool) but they do have state code that requires VA homeschool students to comply with vaccination
District Court and Tax rulings do NOT set Judicial precedent. Any District Ruling that does follow suit from previous Supreme Court Rulings are virtually worthless. Tax cases are individual rulings and do NOT set precedent on future hearings or prosecutions. They can assuredly have interesting revelations in them, but other than that, they are just like any scientific study... some are well designed and meaningful, others are useless.
This is entirely unnecessary. I would absolutely, positively NEVER advise anyone on any federal income tax situation. Please show me where I have done so, otherwise, you are out of line. I said that there is a growing body of evidence that questions its creation and Constitutionality, and that's all I said. I also said, on two separate occasions that I pay federal income tax on my wages.
You, plain and simply, baited me with this topic in an attempt to label me as a conspiracy theorist. Surely if I'm a conspiracy theorist regarding income tax, I must think Big Pharma is out to invoke universal sterilization or genocide with vaccines. Yes? This is a tired, worn-out trolling tactic that almost every provaxxer that posts here has accused many of here of being. There is nothing more sophomoric than crying conspiracy theory and saying absolutely nothing constructive to support your argument.
You are in error over your assertion in regards to judicial precedent.
You can refer back to your IRS tax protester link and see that even the IRS appropriately acknowledges that the SCOTUS sets the "law of the land", which is why they've listed it as "The Law", while beneath it addressing "Relevant Case Law". Some case law may certainly be meaningful, but it is misleading to state that simply because there *is* case law to support any decision that the decision is correct. People are wrongfully prosecuted and incarcerated all the time. The fact that there are probably thousands of district court rulings that are out of compliance with SCOTUS rulings doesn't make them right, and this is precisely why there is controversy in the first place.
When I speak of Judicial Precedent, I am discussing precedent that ultimately becomes The Law. Case law, cannot and will not, ever become The Law - not so with supreme court rulings.
I re-read your post, yes, this is what you said. I'm *not* spreading false information, and by using *case law* to show that I am, is misleading for the reasons I continue to outline. There are several SCOTUS rulings that have shown that the 16th Amendment conferred no new authority regarding taxation, and there is enough controversy over *some* of the SCOTUS rulings to have created the entire debacle on a Constitutional level in the first place. This is the crux of the entire controversy (SCOTUS vs. District/Tax Courts), and this is NOT false. I have a case binder on this topic with more than 20,000 discovery documents that I have reviewed, and have additionally spent thousands of research hours trying to fully comprehend the scope of this argument. In the end, I pay my taxes. ANYWAY....
I am skeptical of publicly traded corporations producing a product with taxpayer dollars (like they just did with H1N1), which is then mandated for universal use, while exempt from liability.
They are well constructed, when you're not running the conspiracy theory gambit. We obviously have differing opinions on a number of issues. I've engaged your position without calling you a pharma shill, I simply want the same courtesy.
I also promise not to call you a pharma shill.
I think you overstate the level of controversey.