emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear [Constitutional Lawyer in Houston]:
You were referred to me by an advocate with the Texas Constitution Party.
I have been asking Christians and Constitutionalists who oppose ACA mandates
for help to organize either a petition, lawsuit or Constitutional conference.
I want to address what I and many others consider to be an unconstitutional overreach of federal govt
to pass and enforce ACA as law, including a tax penalty for not buying private insurance,
without first voting on any kind of AMENDMENT to the US Constitution authorizing federal govt in this area
of health care decisions and financial management reaching into the private sector.
I would like to organize a team of Constitutional lawyers willing to moderate
input from activists from BOTH the Democratic left AND the Republican right
who oppose this ACA bill and mandates forcing citizens to pay corporate insurance
clearly benefiting at the expense of taxpayers who have no representation.
As long as the two sides don't agree what to change the ACA mandates to,
it appears candidates are deadlocked and the policy remains as is, so taxpayers continue to
be penalized and deprived of liberty without due process of law.
I am arguing that the regulations and penalties
"discriminate on the basis of creed" in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
if not the Tenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.
The belief in "right to health care" is not treated equally as a political belief
as the belief in "right to life" so I believe the Right to Life advocates have grounds to sue the
Democratic Party leaders who pushed this "right to health care" belief through federal laws
but have discriminated in blocking "right to life" beliefs arguing for "separation of church and state."
It is a discriminatory practice NOT to apply the "separation of church and state"
EQUALLY to the "right to health care" beliefs, while penalizing the "free market beliefs"
as not equally protected either.
The federal exemptions under ACA that specify which religious affiliations count as exemptions
are essentially "regulating on the basis of religion or creed"; while those who believe in
"the right to health care through govt" are not as affected as those who believe in free market
health care, where forced compliance with the mandates violates Constitutional beliefs held by half the nation.
I would like to ask you and other Constitutional lawyers and law firms to
consult on organizing a conference on "political beliefs"
to see if the people on all side concerned about ACA -- and threats of discrimination
against prochoice and prolife beliefs, beliefs in free market and right to health care, etc. --
can agree to respect each other's political beliefs, and either ask, demand, petition or SUE both parties to respect beliefs EQUALLY and agree to QUIT imposing biased
laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by establishing one belief while excluding or penalizing another.
On the issues of political beliefs, I argue these should be treated equally as religious beliefs,
or it is a form of discrimination by creed. If only people with secular beliefs get to use govt
to establish theirs, but people with religious beliefs are barred, that is discrimination by creed.
I hold that because political beliefs cannot be separated from govt as religious beliefs are required,
then CONSENSUS is necessary on laws or decisions that touch on political beliefs
to prevent such discrimination and to ensure that all people are protected equally, regardless.
Thus, I find it unconstitutional for govt to pass laws, much less enforce them,
where one side's political beliefs are established publicly and required for all citizens to comply with,
while people of dissenting beliefs are excluded, penalized or otherwise discriminated against by govt.
I believe this unconstitutional infringement has already occurred,
and should be corrected as soon as possible to cap any further damages already imposed.
I believe in equal respect, justice and protection under law for all people, regardless of creed or belief.
I am distressed that nobody has successfully stopped or corrected the unconstitutional
problems under the ACA mandates,
and in the meantime my liberties, rights and freedom have been
deprived and denied without any due process of law to prove that
a crime or violation was committed deserving of restricted freedom.
I see no reason to penalize taxpayers who believe in free market approaches
to affordable, sustainable, cost effective and ethical health care provisions
that would be consistent with constitutional ethics, standards, principles and process,
unlike the ACA mandates that I find to be in violation on many levels.
Nobody seems to be challenging this on the grounds of political beliefs.
Given the strong legal community we have in Houston,
could we bring together leaders on both sides of the health care issue
and address how to handle the political beliefs of
* freedom of choice and right to health care
* free market health care and right to life
Where the parties and federal officials can be asked, petitioned or sued
to respect and protect these beliefs equally.
My question is
* is the First Amendment clause on religious freedom and
the language in the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights laws on
equal protection from discrimination by creed
SUFFICIENT language to protect political beliefs from either
-- imposition and establishment by govt similar to religious beliefs
-- denial, exclusion, discrimination and/or penalty
* or do we need to pass ADDITIONAL legislation or
clarifying amendments to address POLITICAL BELIEFS
so that people are protected equally and not
discriminated against if one party's votes outnumber the other party,
and cause legislation or rulings to be passed FAVORING one party's beliefs while excluding the other's beliefs.
I would like to ask the help of other Constitutionalists
to lay out these points and issues, and to ask to organize
a Constitutional conference to decide if Amendments are needed
or just an agreement to RESPECT political beliefs under "religion" and "creed"
where no changes are needed to the current wording of our Constitutional laws.
Do we NEED to specify that consensus is required to establish
laws or rulings through govt that touch on beliefs or creeds?
So that majority rule is never abused to force a biased faith-based
law that violates the equal freedom and protection of others.
The right to marriage and marriage equality issues also brought
up the issue of beliefs (where I believe consensus is necessary
on public laws, or else an agree to remove the conflicting policy
from govt and keep it private practice through religious freedom left unregulated by govt).
If you or other lawyers you recommend might be interested
in calling a Constitutional conference on this issue, I believe
it will be beneficial in resolving conflicts between beliefs on health care
and marriage laws, as well as other areas from gun rights, voting rights,
immigration rights, the death penalty and abortion, all of which involve
deeply held beliefs that people are not willing to compromise by majority rule.
I believe consensus is necessary in such cases where beliefs cannot be changed by govt.
Thank you very much.
I hope I may find leaders in Constitutional law and govt reform
willing to address these issues, and open the door for the rest
of the nation to follow suit.
Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem, Constitutionalist
Democratic Precinct 30, Freedmen's Town
713-820-5130
ethics-commission.net
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
Isonomy
[email protected]
You were referred to me by an advocate with the Texas Constitution Party.
I have been asking Christians and Constitutionalists who oppose ACA mandates
for help to organize either a petition, lawsuit or Constitutional conference.
I want to address what I and many others consider to be an unconstitutional overreach of federal govt
to pass and enforce ACA as law, including a tax penalty for not buying private insurance,
without first voting on any kind of AMENDMENT to the US Constitution authorizing federal govt in this area
of health care decisions and financial management reaching into the private sector.
I would like to organize a team of Constitutional lawyers willing to moderate
input from activists from BOTH the Democratic left AND the Republican right
who oppose this ACA bill and mandates forcing citizens to pay corporate insurance
clearly benefiting at the expense of taxpayers who have no representation.
As long as the two sides don't agree what to change the ACA mandates to,
it appears candidates are deadlocked and the policy remains as is, so taxpayers continue to
be penalized and deprived of liberty without due process of law.
I am arguing that the regulations and penalties
"discriminate on the basis of creed" in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
if not the Tenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.
The belief in "right to health care" is not treated equally as a political belief
as the belief in "right to life" so I believe the Right to Life advocates have grounds to sue the
Democratic Party leaders who pushed this "right to health care" belief through federal laws
but have discriminated in blocking "right to life" beliefs arguing for "separation of church and state."
It is a discriminatory practice NOT to apply the "separation of church and state"
EQUALLY to the "right to health care" beliefs, while penalizing the "free market beliefs"
as not equally protected either.
The federal exemptions under ACA that specify which religious affiliations count as exemptions
are essentially "regulating on the basis of religion or creed"; while those who believe in
"the right to health care through govt" are not as affected as those who believe in free market
health care, where forced compliance with the mandates violates Constitutional beliefs held by half the nation.
I would like to ask you and other Constitutional lawyers and law firms to
consult on organizing a conference on "political beliefs"
to see if the people on all side concerned about ACA -- and threats of discrimination
against prochoice and prolife beliefs, beliefs in free market and right to health care, etc. --
can agree to respect each other's political beliefs, and either ask, demand, petition or SUE both parties to respect beliefs EQUALLY and agree to QUIT imposing biased
laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by establishing one belief while excluding or penalizing another.
On the issues of political beliefs, I argue these should be treated equally as religious beliefs,
or it is a form of discrimination by creed. If only people with secular beliefs get to use govt
to establish theirs, but people with religious beliefs are barred, that is discrimination by creed.
I hold that because political beliefs cannot be separated from govt as religious beliefs are required,
then CONSENSUS is necessary on laws or decisions that touch on political beliefs
to prevent such discrimination and to ensure that all people are protected equally, regardless.
Thus, I find it unconstitutional for govt to pass laws, much less enforce them,
where one side's political beliefs are established publicly and required for all citizens to comply with,
while people of dissenting beliefs are excluded, penalized or otherwise discriminated against by govt.
I believe this unconstitutional infringement has already occurred,
and should be corrected as soon as possible to cap any further damages already imposed.
I believe in equal respect, justice and protection under law for all people, regardless of creed or belief.
I am distressed that nobody has successfully stopped or corrected the unconstitutional
problems under the ACA mandates,
and in the meantime my liberties, rights and freedom have been
deprived and denied without any due process of law to prove that
a crime or violation was committed deserving of restricted freedom.
I see no reason to penalize taxpayers who believe in free market approaches
to affordable, sustainable, cost effective and ethical health care provisions
that would be consistent with constitutional ethics, standards, principles and process,
unlike the ACA mandates that I find to be in violation on many levels.
Nobody seems to be challenging this on the grounds of political beliefs.
Given the strong legal community we have in Houston,
could we bring together leaders on both sides of the health care issue
and address how to handle the political beliefs of
* freedom of choice and right to health care
* free market health care and right to life
Where the parties and federal officials can be asked, petitioned or sued
to respect and protect these beliefs equally.
My question is
* is the First Amendment clause on religious freedom and
the language in the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights laws on
equal protection from discrimination by creed
SUFFICIENT language to protect political beliefs from either
-- imposition and establishment by govt similar to religious beliefs
-- denial, exclusion, discrimination and/or penalty
* or do we need to pass ADDITIONAL legislation or
clarifying amendments to address POLITICAL BELIEFS
so that people are protected equally and not
discriminated against if one party's votes outnumber the other party,
and cause legislation or rulings to be passed FAVORING one party's beliefs while excluding the other's beliefs.
I would like to ask the help of other Constitutionalists
to lay out these points and issues, and to ask to organize
a Constitutional conference to decide if Amendments are needed
or just an agreement to RESPECT political beliefs under "religion" and "creed"
where no changes are needed to the current wording of our Constitutional laws.
Do we NEED to specify that consensus is required to establish
laws or rulings through govt that touch on beliefs or creeds?
So that majority rule is never abused to force a biased faith-based
law that violates the equal freedom and protection of others.
The right to marriage and marriage equality issues also brought
up the issue of beliefs (where I believe consensus is necessary
on public laws, or else an agree to remove the conflicting policy
from govt and keep it private practice through religious freedom left unregulated by govt).
If you or other lawyers you recommend might be interested
in calling a Constitutional conference on this issue, I believe
it will be beneficial in resolving conflicts between beliefs on health care
and marriage laws, as well as other areas from gun rights, voting rights,
immigration rights, the death penalty and abortion, all of which involve
deeply held beliefs that people are not willing to compromise by majority rule.
I believe consensus is necessary in such cases where beliefs cannot be changed by govt.
Thank you very much.
I hope I may find leaders in Constitutional law and govt reform
willing to address these issues, and open the door for the rest
of the nation to follow suit.
Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem, Constitutionalist
Democratic Precinct 30, Freedmen's Town
713-820-5130
ethics-commission.net
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
Isonomy
[email protected]