Proposed Amendments 28 and 29 on Equality and Right to Health Care

[Pennywise]

We have more pressing issues in this country

No we don't. There is nothing more important than making sure we are no longer ruled by a Tyranny of scumbags who write laws for the serfs.

"Vote them out" is the usual response. I didn't vote for the fucks like Reid, Pelosi or Cantor, yet they have the power to fuck with my life.

 

[Impenitent]

[MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION]

Here is the draft of the Resolution I started for
presentation at the next Democratic Convention.

This is "overly broad" and addressed to the DemParty
but can be adapted to gun issues and addressed
to both Parties to respect equal political beliefs on both sides.
and seek solutions that both sides agree address the objections.

=================================

RESOLUTION on Equality of Party, Political Beliefs, and Protection of the Law

WHEREAS all taxpayers, citizens and persons under Government jurisdiction have equal rights to defend individual beliefs from discrimination by religious or political creed; and

WHEREAS many citizens rely on Political Parties to represent their political beliefs equally as their religious beliefs and personal morals; and

WHEREAS government and public institutions are required to include and serve diverse citizens equally of all views and beliefs, without discrimination by creed otherwise infringing on equal religious freedom, representation, due process and protection of law;

The Democrat Party Principles and Platform shall defend the rights of all citizens to equal representation and inclusion of Political Beliefs without discrimination by Party, including but not limited to:
(a) beliefs for or against gay marriage
(b) beliefs in health care as a right ("singlepayer") or as a choice ("free market")
(c) beliefs for or against death penalty, abortion, euthanasia or other termination issues
(d) beliefs regarding federalism, anti-federalism, states' rights or Constitutionalism, including Constitutional reforms of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and other agencies
(e) beliefs in decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling or other policies
(f) beliefs for or against restorative justice or retributive justice, restitution, or amnesty in criminal justice or immigration reform

To prevent from enacting or enforcing laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by imposing or excluding conflicting beliefs and values, the Democrat Party shall support reforms that equally respect, represent and include beliefs of all citizens, either (1) by passing laws by consensus of representatives voting, to ensure all views are included; (2) in cases where conflicts cannot be resolved, by separating systems by Party to create and fund equal access for members of shared beliefs to policies, practices and administration representing their choices without imposition; (3) by expanding Senate Judiciary Duties to mediate conflicts, grievances and complaints of partisan bias, including but not limited to the areas above, before laws are written and passed; and possibly (4) by reforming the position of Vice President to appoint and train key Mediators through the Justice Department to focus on Peace and Justice by conflict resolution, and to oversee a system of representation by Party on key issues of conflicting beliefs, for the purpose of reaching a consensus on laws, or separating systems by Party as needed for equal representation.

Yet, while asking the Democratic Party to consider your suggestions, you use the perjorative form "Democrat" instead.

Catch more flies with honey ...

 

[emilynghiem]

2. Where disputes arise due to religious or partisan biases, Congress is required to redress grievances and objections, brought by members of Congress or by the public,
to resolve all conflicts by agreement before voting on or passing proposed or amended legislation, and is prohibited from imposing a religious or partisan bias by majority-rule.

That's what courts do. Violates the separation of powers doctrine.

All citizens are free to resolve our own conflicts.
Just not impose those decisions on others, but must respect individual consent.

 

[g5000]

This email has made the rounds, proposing a 28th Amendment on keeping Congress and citizens under the same laws:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States".

(Yes, it might pass if we shortened it to "Congress shall make no laws at all.")

In the style of the Introduction and Second Amendment, stating "Right to bear arms" as a Constitutional right,
I propose an Amendment to add "Right to Health Care" to the Constitution, but in equal context with Free Market Choices so it is fair:

--------------------------------------------
AMENDMENT 29 - Right to Health Care, Freedom of Choice, and Equality of Political Beliefs
(Pursuant to the First, Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments)

1. Political Beliefs, religious traditions, and spiritual processes of healing being integral to personal health care decisions,
Congress shall make no law either establishing or infringing on beliefs in the right to health care
or the right to free market choices without interference by competing ideologies;
but shall remain neutral in representing a public consensus that equally protects all citizens' interests inclusively, without discrimination by creed, religion, or party.

2. Where disputes arise due to religious or partisan biases, Congress is required to redress grievances and objections, brought by members of Congress or by the public,
to resolve all conflicts by agreement before voting on or passing proposed or amended legislation, and is prohibited from imposing a religious or partisan bias by majority-rule.

Pursuant to the First, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, where partisan conflicts of political or religious beliefs cannot be resolved by consensus on a federal level,
proposed legislation or amendments shall be delegated to the People to decide locally through their States, Parties, or Organizations of choice, accepting legal and financial responsibility
for resolving conflicts and/or representing them separately to protect equal interests and beliefs of all citizens without infringing on others, as facilitated and confirmed through the Senate.

The Senate and Judiciary Committee shall be in charge of assessing areas of conflict, and appointing or approving mediation facilitators and conflict resolution procedures to redress grievances by the People, States, and Parties to reach a consensus on such policies, including but not limited to health care, marriage laws, and other issues divided over partisan lines by religious or political beliefs.

Congress shall have power to implement appropriate legislation as recommended by the Senate where consensus is reached on policies or procedures
for resolving or separating conflicting beliefs to ensure equal treatment and inclusion of all persons or parties.

3. States, Parties, Citizens and Organizations, public or private, reserve equal rights and responsibilities for policy requirements, and costs of implementation and management of health care programs that represent respective populations by membership or by region, as necessary for equal protections of the laws from discrimination by creed, involuntary servitude, or taxation without equal representation.

4. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation, including reforms through the Internal Revenue Service,
as required to delegate or separate policies on health care mandates, taxation, and exemptions by State or by Party,
as approved by consent of their respective populations and confirmed by consensus of the Senate.
=================================

I will ask former and current leaders and candidates to meet in teams representing all Parties
to refine these basic concepts behind this Amendment, try to post a working draft by June,
and try to recognize equal rights to health care and free market choices by August by Obama's birthday as a gift to the President.

If he wants his legacy to be health care reform, it must follow Constitutional procedures, where an Amendment is required; which at the same time
could protect all other political beliefs and require conflict resolution and consensus on policies to avoid imposing any partisan bias or beliefs.

If you have recommendations on this or on candidates or leaders to review and consult on these proposed Amendments, please advise! Thanks!

I propose we call Amendment 29 the "Our side lost the election and we want to force our way on everyone anyway" amendment.

We can call it the "Butt Hurt" amendment for short.

 

[rightwinger]

This email has made the rounds, proposing a 28th Amendment on keeping Congress and citizens under the same laws:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States".

(Yes, it might pass if we shortened it to "Congress shall make no laws at all.")

In the style of the Introduction and Second Amendment, stating "Right to bear arms" as a Constitutional right,
I propose an Amendment to add "Right to Health Care" to the Constitution, but in equal context with Free Market Choices so it is fair:

--------------------------------------------
AMENDMENT 29 - Right to Health Care, Freedom of Choice, and Equality of Political Beliefs
(Pursuant to the First, Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments)

1. Political Beliefs, religious traditions, and spiritual processes of healing being integral to personal health care decisions,
Congress shall make no law either establishing or infringing on beliefs in the right to health care
or the right to free market choices without interference by competing ideologies;
but shall remain neutral in representing a public consensus that equally protects all citizens' interests inclusively, without discrimination by creed, religion, or party.

2. Where disputes arise due to religious or partisan biases, Congress is required to redress grievances and objections, brought by members of Congress or by the public,
to resolve all conflicts by agreement before voting on or passing proposed or amended legislation, and is prohibited from imposing a religious or partisan bias by majority-rule.

Pursuant to the First, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, where partisan conflicts of political or religious beliefs cannot be resolved by consensus on a federal level,
proposed legislation or amendments shall be delegated to the People to decide locally through their States, Parties, or Organizations of choice, accepting legal and financial responsibility
for resolving conflicts and/or representing them separately to protect equal interests and beliefs of all citizens without infringing on others, as facilitated and confirmed through the Senate.

The Senate and Judiciary Committee shall be in charge of assessing areas of conflict, and appointing or approving mediation facilitators and conflict resolution procedures to redress grievances by the People, States, and Parties to reach a consensus on such policies, including but not limited to health care, marriage laws, and other issues divided over partisan lines by religious or political beliefs.

Congress shall have power to implement appropriate legislation as recommended by the Senate where consensus is reached on policies or procedures
for resolving or separating conflicting beliefs to ensure equal treatment and inclusion of all persons or parties.

3. States, Parties, Citizens and Organizations, public or private, reserve equal rights and responsibilities for policy requirements, and costs of implementation and management of health care programs that represent respective populations by membership or by region, as necessary for equal protections of the laws from discrimination by creed, involuntary servitude, or taxation without equal representation.

4. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation, including reforms through the Internal Revenue Service,
as required to delegate or separate policies on health care mandates, taxation, and exemptions by State or by Party,
as approved by consent of their respective populations and confirmed by consensus of the Senate.
=================================

I will ask former and current leaders and candidates to meet in teams representing all Parties
to refine these basic concepts behind this Amendment, try to post a working draft by June,
and try to recognize equal rights to health care and free market choices by August by Obama's birthday as a gift to the President.

If he wants his legacy to be health care reform, it must follow Constitutional procedures, where an Amendment is required; which at the same time
could protect all other political beliefs and require conflict resolution and consensus on policies to avoid imposing any partisan bias or beliefs.

If you have recommendations on this or on candidates or leaders to review and consult on these proposed Amendments, please advise! Thanks!

I propose we call Amendment 29 the "Our side lost the election and we want to force our way on everyone anyway" amendment.

We can call it the "Butt Hurt" amendment for short.

Is Butt Hurt covered under Obamacare?

 

[emilynghiem]

RESOLUTION on Equality of Party, Political Beliefs, and Protection of the Law

WHEREAS all taxpayers, citizens and persons under Government jurisdiction have equal rights to defend individual beliefs from discrimination by religious or political creed; and

WHEREAS many citizens rely on Political Parties to represent their political beliefs equally as their religious beliefs and personal morals; and

WHEREAS government and public institutions are required to include and serve diverse citizens equally of all views and beliefs, without discrimination by creed otherwise infringing on equal religious freedom, representation, due process and protection of law;

The Democrat Party Principles and Platform shall defend the rights of all citizens to equal representation and inclusion of Political Beliefs without discrimination by Party, including but not limited to:
(a) beliefs for or against gay marriage
(b) beliefs in health care as a right ("singlepayer") or as a choice ("free market")
(c) beliefs for or against death penalty, abortion, euthanasia or other termination issues
(d) beliefs regarding federalism, anti-federalism, states' rights or Constitutionalism, including Constitutional reforms of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and other agencies
(e) beliefs in decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling or other policies
(f) beliefs for or against restorative justice or retributive justice, restitution, or amnesty in criminal justice or immigration reform

To prevent from enacting or enforcing laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by imposing or excluding conflicting beliefs and values, the Democrat Party shall support reforms that equally respect, represent and include beliefs of all citizens, either (1) by passing laws by consensus of representatives voting, to ensure all views are included; (2) in cases where conflicts cannot be resolved, by separating systems by Party to create and fund equal access for members of shared beliefs to policies, practices and administration representing their choices without imposition; (3) by expanding Senate Judiciary Duties to mediate conflicts, grievances and complaints of partisan bias, including but not limited to the areas above, before laws are written and passed; and possibly (4) by reforming the position of Vice President to appoint and train key Mediators through the Justice Department to focus on Peace and Justice by conflict resolution, and to oversee a system of representation by Party on key issues of conflicting beliefs, for the purpose of reaching a consensus on laws, or separating systems by Party as needed for equal representation.

Yet, while asking the Democratic Party to consider your suggestions, you use the perjorative form "Democrat" instead.

Catch more flies with honey ...[/QUOTE]

Hi Impenitent,
As an active member and volunteer with the Democrat Party trying to save a national historic district DESTROYED under Democrat leadership,

I count investing over 60,000 of my own money, over 15-20 years of volunteering, and working two jobs to pay these credit card debts, as plenty of leverage to show that I support fellow Democrats in fixing the problems we are responsible for as a Party.

The abuses of govt authority and taxpayers resources, by 4 consecutive Democrat Mayors of Houston, to destroy irreplaceable nationally registered history, including African American, Civil Rights, and military landmarks, speaks for itself.

I am just trying to organize means of collecting or crediting back restitution into restoration and development plans that were censored and destroyed by divisive politics.

I can't even get this work done as long as the parties remain divided over race, class and beliefs, wasting billions of dollars competing and campaigning, while our national historic landmarks are lost for lack of funding.

The problems and solutions speak for themselves.

I don't expect to reach all people, not everyone responds or relates to me;
but just ask for people to reach each other who CAN communicate and relate together.

Let each party address these issues their own way,
that solves the problems instead of competing to deflect blame.

The Democrat Party has its own list of problems to correct, and I am happy to negotiate the settlement for my home district as a "pilot model" for public restitution and corrections owed for debts and damages; as a Democrat I have accepted shared responsibility for the fundraising and credit structure for paying back taxpayers for millions of dollars abused to destroy national historic property because of unchecked political conflicts of interest.

All I ask in return is to correct these problems so they don't keep happening.

I don't have all the solutions to all related problems that are similar to my district, but there are people out there who do; so why not ask both parties to process and redress those grievances directly instead of backlogging our democratic system with political infighting.

How long can we afford to keep this up when it isn't solving any of the problems directly?

 

[Impenitent]

RESOLUTION on Equality of Party, Political Beliefs, and Protection of the Law

WHEREAS all taxpayers, citizens and persons under Government jurisdiction have equal rights to defend individual beliefs from discrimination by religious or political creed; and

WHEREAS many citizens rely on Political Parties to represent their political beliefs equally as their religious beliefs and personal morals; and

WHEREAS government and public institutions are required to include and serve diverse citizens equally of all views and beliefs, without discrimination by creed otherwise infringing on equal religious freedom, representation, due process and protection of law;

The Democrat Party Principles and Platform shall defend the rights of all citizens to equal representation and inclusion of Political Beliefs without discrimination by Party, including but not limited to:
(a) beliefs for or against gay marriage
(b) beliefs in health care as a right ("singlepayer") or as a choice ("free market")
(c) beliefs for or against death penalty, abortion, euthanasia or other termination issues
(d) beliefs regarding federalism, anti-federalism, states' rights or Constitutionalism, including Constitutional reforms of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and other agencies
(e) beliefs in decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling or other policies
(f) beliefs for or against restorative justice or retributive justice, restitution, or amnesty in criminal justice or immigration reform

To prevent from enacting or enforcing laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by imposing or excluding conflicting beliefs and values, the Democrat Party shall support reforms that equally respect, represent and include beliefs of all citizens, either (1) by passing laws by consensus of representatives voting, to ensure all views are included; (2) in cases where conflicts cannot be resolved, by separating systems by Party to create and fund equal access for members of shared beliefs to policies, practices and administration representing their choices without imposition; (3) by expanding Senate Judiciary Duties to mediate conflicts, grievances and complaints of partisan bias, including but not limited to the areas above, before laws are written and passed; and possibly (4) by reforming the position of Vice President to appoint and train key Mediators through the Justice Department to focus on Peace and Justice by conflict resolution, and to oversee a system of representation by Party on key issues of conflicting beliefs, for the purpose of reaching a consensus on laws, or separating systems by Party as needed for equal representation.

Yet, while asking the Democratic Party to consider your suggestions, you use the perjorative form "Democrat" instead.

Catch more flies with honey ...

Hi Impenitent,
As an active member and volunteer with the Democrat Party trying to save a national historic district DESTROYED under Democrat leadership,

I counWt investing over 60,000 of my own money, over 15-20 years of volunteering, and working two jobs to pay these credit card debts, as plenty of leverage to show that I support fellow Democrats in fixing the problems we are responsible for as a Party.

The abuses of govt authority and taxpayers resources, by 4 consecutive Democrat Mayors of Houston, to destroy irreplaceable nationally registered history, including African American, Civil Rights, and military landmarks, speaks for itself.

I am just trying to organize means of collecting or crediting back restitution into restoration and development plans that were censored and destroyed by divisive politics.

I can't even get this work done as long as the parties remain divided over race, class and beliefs, wasting billions of dollars competing and campaigning, while our national historic landmarks are lost for lack of funding.

The problems and solutions speak for themselves.

I don't expect to reach all people, not everyone responds or relates to me;
but just ask for people to reach each other who CAN communicate and relate together.

Let each party address these issues their own way,
that solves the problems instead of competing to deflect blame.

The Democrat Party has its own list of problems to correct, and I am happy to negotiate the settlement for my home district as a "pilot model" for public restitution and corrections owed for debts and damages; as a Democrat I have accepted shared responsibility for the fundraising and credit structure for paying back taxpayers for millions of dollars abused to destroy national historic property because of unchecked political conflicts of interest.

All I ask in return is to correct these problems so they don't keep happening.

I don't have all the solutions to all related problems that are similar to my district, but there are people out there who do; so why not ask both parties to process and redress those grievances directly instead of backlogging our democratic system with political infighting.

How long can we afford to keep this up when it isn't solving any of the problems directly?[/QUOTE]

Impressive!

I'll admit to a very shallow reading of your work. Thank you for your civil, and quite informative response.

You rock!

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi [MENTION=3254]Little-Acorn[/MENTION]

1. About Congressional or officeholders' pay:

I don't think this means literally for all areas and conditions.

It means to AGREE what areas to apply it to.
If we *AGREE* that the person elected President has X salary and Y benefits, etc.
that is DIFFERENT from NOT AGREEING on holding citizens and officials to the same plans
when it comes to health care insurance and benefits.

I think this would have to be more carefully written,
or else AGREE how to interpret it.

2. What if we COULD set up the govt positions to be on the same basis as citizens?
What if citizens got tax breaks for doing so much work in civics management,
and we reshaped govt jobs to be similar: such as part time work in civic duties,
where the govt staff depend on regular jobs to support themselves, as other citizens.

Then only the staff who NEED to be full time, such as some military or higher level jobs
would be different. What if we delegated the duties, where NOBODY depended on a "cushy govt job" to support themselves and their retirement? What if everyone had to work regular jobs to support themselves, and SHARE more civic duties among more people?

This way, we could localize more of the work, and only reserve the very CENTRAL roles for full-time staff.

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States".

I can see what you're trying to do with this amendment, and it's laudable.

But this amendment falls short of accomplishing your goal, by a wide sea mile.

If this were enacted as written, then when Congress passes a law raising Congress's pay by 10% (that's the only way Congress's pay can be determined), then every worker in America must get a 10% increase too.

I know, you didn't mean it that way. But that's what it says.

You see the problem. Unless the amendment is written in a way that doesn't cause such a problem, it's unacceptable.

And you might find it's impossible to write an amendment to accomplish what you want, without also causing unintended problems like that.

In the style of the Introduction and Second Amendment, stating "Right to bear arms" as a Constitutional right,
I propose an Amendment to add "Right to Health Care" to the Constitution, but in equal context with Free Market Choices so it is fair:

Flat fail.

You can't make a law providing a "right to health care" of ANY description, any more than you can make a law providing that all horses will henceforth have seven legs. And for the same reason: There simply is no such thing, and making a law won't change that.

Even if your law simply says that the Fed govt shall have nothing to do with people's right to health care... that law clearly implies that people have a "right to health care". When in fact they don't.

Unlike the right to keep and bear arms, "health care" is something other people (usually) give to you. Doctors treat you, people run drug companies to make medicines for you to take, people build hospitals to provide operating rooms etc. And if you have a "right" to those things, then those people can be COMPELLED to do their work or build their facilities to provide it to you.

Unh-unh.

If people have to do things to provide you this "right", then it isn't a right at all. Instead, it's an obligation imposed on others.

You have the right to keep and bear arms... but that doesn't mean others are obligated to give you a pistol or rifle.

But the "right" to health care as most people mean it, DOES obligate others to treat you when you need treatments.

Huge, and vital, difference. And it's a difference that means there can NEVER be a "right to health care".

Unfortunate, since the provision of health care can mean the difference between life and death. But true nonetheless, since forcing others to provide you health care, violates THEIR rights.

The only way your amendment can ever come close to working, is if it simply says something like, "Congress shall make no law regarding the provision or restriction of Health Care." And then you'd have to write more to define "health Care", which is a separate mess all its own.

Sorry, but the Framers got it right the first time. They simply wrote a document (Constitution) saying what the Fed govt CAN do, and forbade all else, letting lower govts do other stuff if they want.

The problem is not what the document says. The problem is that people aren't obeying it.

And changing the document, won't change that.

RE: above in bold about "rights to health care"
this is actually written into the Democrat Platform as a BELIEF

So what I recommend is recognizing parties as political BELIEFS or religions,
and people are FREE to pursue these BELIEFS under their own group organizations
and structures, but are NOT supposed to impose their BELIEFS through govt mandates.

This is why it is helpful or may be necessary to reach an agreement
that political platforms constitute religiously held BELIEFS so they
are both respected under the First Amendment while not IMPOSED either.