Can someone please help me write and edit letters to post online.
I would like to ask the Pacific Legal Foundation, the National Constitution Center,
and possibly a lawyer working on defense for other federal cases requiring restitution,
for help to make a statement that ACA is unconstitutional by precluding or penalizing
people based on "political beliefs" instead of protecting and representing all views equally.
==============================
Draft of letter emailed to an editor at the NCC in response to this article
http://news.yahoo.com/next-obamacar...closer-supreme-court-132205051--politics.html
Dear Scott Bomboy and National Constitution Center:
Thank you for your work to promote Constitutional enforcement and education.
I believe the goal of our country should be progressing toward self-government,
And that political parties should be used similar to religious groups to organize
People and resources through community structures that best represent their interests.
The problem I have which I ask your assistance to resolve,
Is that I treat political beliefs as religious beliefs equal protected under law.
So I clash with people who see majority rule and party politics as a way
To override or outnumber people of other views. By abusing govt
This way, to me this violates equal Constitutional protections and representation,
And disrupts “due process” and democracy by skewing the conflicts instead of resolving them.
I believe in isonomy and recognize that my beliefs
about Constitutional inclusion based on “equal respect
for partisan beliefs, groups, and representation”
borders on if not constitutes a “political religion.”
This difference in religion is most visible in comparison
With current Constitutional views that justify outruling,
Overriding, excluding or discriminating against parties’
Political beliefs, while imposing biased laws, programs,
Policies or rulings which FAVOR a political bias and IMPOSE
it by majority rule or by court ruling. To me, by my beliefs
in Constitutional ethics and principles, this is unconstitutional.
Is there any lawyer or legal team who could help me to defend
My views from infringement. Not so much the “content of my views”
In terms of the actual biases I have toward prochoice or anti-ACA,
But the system of SEPARATING political beliefs by party the same
Way we currently expect religious beliefs and churches to be separated.
My views about protecting political beliefs by separating the parties
Is the core of my argument in order to protect (a) not only my beliefs
but also (b) the beliefs of those who favor liberal/Democrat beliefs and
(c) the beliefs of those who favor conservative/Republican beliefs,
And any other taxpayers who are affected by bullying by coercion/oppression or exclusion/discrimination of leaders or members of one party by the other.
In particular, I would like to rebuke or redress President Obama himself on why he pushes one side of the ACA health care issue which clearly has partisan biases, when the Constitution calls for equal protection of the laws for people of all beliefs without discrimination or govt regulation based on religion, and the Code of Ethics for Govt Service calls for putting duty to the Constitution above party or department.
I was hoping to set up direct communication, as I prefer conflict resolution and mediation over litigation which tends to bureaucratize due process.
Since ACA was initially passed, based on a majority that clearly reflected a political bias, I have found this to be unconstitutional – either in its content alone, or by the nature of imposing it by federal govt at the exclusion of people with opposing beliefs based on religiously held principles that are not negotiable, and penalizing these opponents for their views.
I don’t see other people making this same argument in general, but
Only arguing about the content of the laws. Since there is disagreement
On interpretation because people have different beliefs; these conflicts prove there is such dissension and will remain in conflict regardless what the govt decides, because the people inherently believe differently.
I am arguing it is unlawful to abuse the govt this way to impose conflicting beliefs on dissenters, similar to voting on policies with religious biases and pushing this by majority rule through govt so as to exclude people and groups of the other religious views. Our political views are being excluded.
Can you please refer or recommend a Constitutional lawyer or Mediator who can advise me how to defend my views that are not being represented here.
I believe it is Constitutionally and legally necessary to resolve the conflicts and/or to SEPARATE the policies, programs and funding in order to prevent imposition of one side’s political beliefs on the other.
All sides would be EQUALLY protected and included, if the ACA were declared optional, and only mandatory for those who believe in mandatory funding of it or mandatory insurance purchase.
If you could please help or advise me, I am happy to work with your Constitutional Center to organize solutions by Party for other members who believe in free choice and equal inclusion/representation by Party.
Thank you very much for your commitment, service and outreach to the public.
Yours very truly,
Emily Nghiem
Houston, Texas
713-820-5130
[email protected]
ethics-commission.net
Earned Amnesty
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
I would like to ask the Pacific Legal Foundation, the National Constitution Center,
and possibly a lawyer working on defense for other federal cases requiring restitution,
for help to make a statement that ACA is unconstitutional by precluding or penalizing
people based on "political beliefs" instead of protecting and representing all views equally.
==============================
Draft of letter emailed to an editor at the NCC in response to this article
http://news.yahoo.com/next-obamacar...closer-supreme-court-132205051--politics.html
Dear Scott Bomboy and National Constitution Center:
Thank you for your work to promote Constitutional enforcement and education.
I believe the goal of our country should be progressing toward self-government,
And that political parties should be used similar to religious groups to organize
People and resources through community structures that best represent their interests.
The problem I have which I ask your assistance to resolve,
Is that I treat political beliefs as religious beliefs equal protected under law.
So I clash with people who see majority rule and party politics as a way
To override or outnumber people of other views. By abusing govt
This way, to me this violates equal Constitutional protections and representation,
And disrupts “due process” and democracy by skewing the conflicts instead of resolving them.
I believe in isonomy and recognize that my beliefs
about Constitutional inclusion based on “equal respect
for partisan beliefs, groups, and representation”
borders on if not constitutes a “political religion.”
This difference in religion is most visible in comparison
With current Constitutional views that justify outruling,
Overriding, excluding or discriminating against parties’
Political beliefs, while imposing biased laws, programs,
Policies or rulings which FAVOR a political bias and IMPOSE
it by majority rule or by court ruling. To me, by my beliefs
in Constitutional ethics and principles, this is unconstitutional.
Is there any lawyer or legal team who could help me to defend
My views from infringement. Not so much the “content of my views”
In terms of the actual biases I have toward prochoice or anti-ACA,
But the system of SEPARATING political beliefs by party the same
Way we currently expect religious beliefs and churches to be separated.
My views about protecting political beliefs by separating the parties
Is the core of my argument in order to protect (a) not only my beliefs
but also (b) the beliefs of those who favor liberal/Democrat beliefs and
(c) the beliefs of those who favor conservative/Republican beliefs,
And any other taxpayers who are affected by bullying by coercion/oppression or exclusion/discrimination of leaders or members of one party by the other.
In particular, I would like to rebuke or redress President Obama himself on why he pushes one side of the ACA health care issue which clearly has partisan biases, when the Constitution calls for equal protection of the laws for people of all beliefs without discrimination or govt regulation based on religion, and the Code of Ethics for Govt Service calls for putting duty to the Constitution above party or department.
I was hoping to set up direct communication, as I prefer conflict resolution and mediation over litigation which tends to bureaucratize due process.
Since ACA was initially passed, based on a majority that clearly reflected a political bias, I have found this to be unconstitutional – either in its content alone, or by the nature of imposing it by federal govt at the exclusion of people with opposing beliefs based on religiously held principles that are not negotiable, and penalizing these opponents for their views.
I don’t see other people making this same argument in general, but
Only arguing about the content of the laws. Since there is disagreement
On interpretation because people have different beliefs; these conflicts prove there is such dissension and will remain in conflict regardless what the govt decides, because the people inherently believe differently.
I am arguing it is unlawful to abuse the govt this way to impose conflicting beliefs on dissenters, similar to voting on policies with religious biases and pushing this by majority rule through govt so as to exclude people and groups of the other religious views. Our political views are being excluded.
Can you please refer or recommend a Constitutional lawyer or Mediator who can advise me how to defend my views that are not being represented here.
I believe it is Constitutionally and legally necessary to resolve the conflicts and/or to SEPARATE the policies, programs and funding in order to prevent imposition of one side’s political beliefs on the other.
All sides would be EQUALLY protected and included, if the ACA were declared optional, and only mandatory for those who believe in mandatory funding of it or mandatory insurance purchase.
If you could please help or advise me, I am happy to work with your Constitutional Center to organize solutions by Party for other members who believe in free choice and equal inclusion/representation by Party.
Thank you very much for your commitment, service and outreach to the public.
Yours very truly,
Emily Nghiem
Houston, Texas
713-820-5130
[email protected]
ethics-commission.net
Earned Amnesty
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
Last edited:
