Answer:
I believe it is against the constitution to require a vacciene passport
Explanation:
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Although the popular term right to d ie has been used to describe the debate over end-of-life decisions, the underlying issues include a variety of legal concepts, some distinct and some overlapping. For instance, right to di e could include issues of sui cide, passive euthanasia (allowing a person to die by refusal or withdrawal of medical intervention), assisted sui cide (providing a person the means of committing suicid e), active euthanasia (killin g another), and palliative care (providing comfort care which accelerates the dea th process). Recently, a new category has been suggested—physician-assisted sui cide—that appears to be an uncertain blend of assisted suicid e or active euthanasia undertaken by a licensed physician.
There has been little litigation of constitutional issues surrounding sui cide generally, although Supreme Court dicta seems to favor the notion that the state has a constitutionally defensible interest in preserving the lives of healthy citizens.1 On the other hand, the right of a seriously ill person to terminate life-sustaining medical treatment has been addressed, but not squarely faced. In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health,2 the Court, rather than directly addressing the issue, assume[d] that a competent person [has] a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition.3 More importantly, however, a majority of the Justices separately declared that such a liberty interest exists.4 Yet, it is not clear how actively the Court would seek to protect this right from state regulation.
In Cruzan, which involved a patient in a persistent vegetative state, the Court upheld a state requirement that there must be clear and convincing evidence of a patient’s previously manifested wishes before nutrition and hydration could be withdrawn. Despite the existence of a presumed due process right, the Court held that a state is not required to follow the judgment of the family, the guardian, or anyone but the patient herself in making this decision.5 Thus, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the patient had expressed an interest not to be sustained in a persistent vegetative state, or that she had expressed a desire to have a surrogate make such a decision for her, the state may refuse to allow withdrawal of nutrition and hydration.6
Despite the Court’s acceptance of such state requirements, the implications of the case are significant. First, the Court appears, without extensive analysis, to have adopted the position that refusing nutrition and hydration is the same as refusing other forms of medical treatment. Also, the Court seems ready to extend such right not only to terminally ill patients, but also to severely incapacitated patients whose condition has stabilized.
Which belief spurred the Great Awakening? Text to speech
a
People have lost their faith.
b
Farm life is better than city life.
c
Women are not as educated as men.
d
Success comes from making money.
Answer:
c
Explanation:
what are some ways in which you can support someone who is a target of online hate? "
What forced the United States into World War II?
Pearl Harbor being bombed.
England being bombed.
The movement of Hitler.
The movement of the Japanese.
Answer:
Pearl Harbor being bombed.
Explanation:
Hope you have a great day :)
Why was the school government created?
Answer:
Before this country officially became the United States of America, there was a need for public education. When the first settlers created the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the governing General Court created the initial education system, which consisted of public and Latin schools designed to teach children Puritan values and how to read the Bible. While much of the teaching was done in the home at that time, there were organized Latin schools for the elite social class to send their sons for formal learning. However, in 1635, the first free public school was also opened, which was supported by taxpayer dollars, according to a report at the University of Michigan.
Less than a decade after the first official public school opened in Virginia, Massachusetts created a law requiring towns with populations of 50 or more to hire a schoolmaster to teach the children of the town basic academics. Towns that had 100 or more people were required to hire a Latin grammar schoolmaster who was equipped to prepare students for higher education. At that time, the only college established in the colonies was Harvard, and that is where students attended if they could prove academic readiness for the rigors of higher education.
Explanation:
Hope this helps!