Request to Houston Tea Party for local Constitutional Convention first

[emilynghiem]

Hello John and Tea Party Patriots:

1. May I suggest we start with a focus on recognizing "political creeds" as protected under the Constitution.
This would allow ALL creeds to be recognized and no longer discriminated against as threats to the creeds of others.

2. Another area where we can avoid having to disintegrate ties altogether:
by creating a third level of law enforcement within each State (can be on purely a voluntary basis such as how Parties operate or Media networks), specifically to identify address and mediate conflicts between political and religious beliefs, then citizens of each state can access training, education and assistance in defending Constitutional protections on the State level (or local) without having to call in the federal govt.

This is especially important in cities like Houston which have shown no responsibility or commitment
to follow and uphold Constitutional protections.

Can we start with a local Constitutional convention for Houston's districts, and see if this Constitutional level of conflict resolution can be organized on a smaller scale? Then if we can make a local model work, we can propose that to the State of Texas to try it among major cities and counties.

3. This may or may not lead to creating an official level of law besides just civil and criminal; but could remain
as just a consulting network where people of all parties can engage in resolving conflicts BEFORE presenting our proposed solutions to the OFFICIAL government agencies and bodies to introduce as public laws and reforms.

With the issues of legalization, gay marriage, and health care, I propose that we set up some means of separating people by PARTY so that each group can exercise their own partisan and political beliefs, without imposing on or requiring approval of other parties that can practice their own beliefs. This would prevent imposing "beliefs" about the right to marriage, health care, etc. on the public by recognizing political creeds similar to religions that cannot be forced by law on people of dissenting beliefs.

Thank you very much,
Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
National Freedmen's Town District
Freedmen s Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

Given the massive political backlash over the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance,
can we please look at organizing a local Constitutional Convention first? If the City
does not agree to revise the City charter to include enforcing Constitutional laws and mediating conflicts
to prevent legal costs and actions, I propose to set up business plans for all the districts to have the option
for incorporating as independent towns (including buying out their local schools and creating programs for educating all residents in law enforcement procedures, business management and property development to become self-reliant) where the City is only in charge of basic maintenance and security while any civic or social policy decisions are decided democratically per district.

My argument for this is that for citizens to be "equal" requires education and experience
directly in owning and managing property and districts under locally elected government, where communities are in charge of their own cities, where property and sales taxes going to their administrations. Otherwise, if citizens are always reliant on "other people" running government, they will never be fully equal to people with such experience.

If we can organize self-government on the city and state levels, we can manage the full range of diversity of religious, political and cultural values while staying united as a nation.

http://www.ethics-commission.net

 

[1751_Texan]

Why do you call your proposed meeting a Constitutional Convention. Houston's ethics code is not a "local" constitution. There is no such document as a "local" constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Paul and John:
Wouldn't you say the Constitution is pretty much open to interpretation at this point anyway,
given how it is ignored by entire political religions and followings such as behind Obama.

The way people today do not respect each other's rights and beliefs, we are almost starting from scratch anyway.
As if these laws don't exist in the minds of half the population that follows whatever they are told to interpret as law.

When I am discussing policies with regular citizens, I often start from ground zero because they have no
knowledge of the Constitution. And we add point by point by whatever we agree on as common principles.

Who says we cannot organize our own Constitutional conferences and start formulating solutions
on how to transfer responsibility for programs back to private sectors that are burdening the federal level.

Instead of trying to take on the whole nation, why not start with Houston and then Texas.
Have local conferences to teach the public in each district what the laws are, and form an AGREEMENT
on what needs to be enforced, and what needs to be reformed.

We may be able to keep most of the Constitutional principles, and just totally reform the bureaucratic messes in govt
that aren't following it anyway, treat them like nonprofit projects that need new business plans, and only
count policies to be govt that all people AGREE is Constitutional; and shift the rest to local responsibility to reform and manage.

This may seem like a daunting task to revert all the extra-governmental programs back to private sectors,
but if this is organized by Party, then the Democrats can take on social programs, the Greens can take on environmental restoration,
the Republicans can take on Veteran and military/security reforms and costs, and Libertarians can take on converting
federal programs back to states rights, etc.

There does not need to be any "war cry" over conflicts with different partisan beliefs, if conventions are organized that treat Parties as States with their own sovereignty and responsibility for their agenda, programs, funding, and members; with the agreed understanding that no Party has authority to impose their beliefs on other Parties, but like religions, must respect free choice and voluntary funding and participation.

Why can't we move toward a government of inclusion. Why can't we have administrations that represent the best ideas of all parties, such as having a Republican President focused on foreign and international security and economy, Democratic Vice President focused on shifting federal programs back to the states to manage internally, Libertarian Secretary of State, Green Treasurer, and Constitutionalist over the Justice Dept to ensure due process is protected by mediation that respects diverse political beliefs and keeps these separated from Constitutional policy that must remain neutral and universal to all.

Because of the issue of the VP not being in conflict with the President (and not trying to assassinate the President in order to succeed) I would even suggest splitting both positions into Internal and External President and Vice President, where it is the Internal President who would succeed to the External President, so both of these positions can come from the same party. While the VP (also split into Internal and External VP) could remain independent and not be in the line of succession, so there is no conflict, and these positions can come from the second place pair of candidates. This way we can focus on reforming govt by separating what really belongs on the federal level from what should be transferred back to the states (or organized nationally by party so it is private but still offers national access across all states).

All the areas of social legislation that have always been contested as not fully Constitutional can be gradually shifted back to States or Parties to manage by the Internal positions of President and VP working with all states and parties to rework those policies, programs and funding where the transitions are as smooth as possible.

We have lost some of the original checks and balances by the President and VP both coming from the same party, and where the second place candidates aren't used in govt at all, leaving out about half of the population from representation.

Why not create positions for them that do not conflict, and which would require candidates broad enough to work with leaders and ideas from both major parties.

This would also allow for training of future VP and Presidents, by creating these partnership positions,
so that new Officials don't spend 4 years experimenting at the public's expense.

The VP positions can be used to test out proposals for reforms on the State or Party levels,
BEFORE trying to offer these as federal policies or programs.

By separating Internal and External roles of the President as a team, then the President as Commander in Chief can focus fulltime on national and international security, and let the Internal roles handle domestic issues that really belong to the States and need to be transferred back there.

Thank you,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

Why do you call your proposed meeting a Constitutional Convention. Houston's ethics code is not a "local" constitution. There is no such document as a "local" constitution.

I'm talking about setting up a local network and assistance for enforcing Constitutional principles (in particular, the Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment on equal protections and the Code of Ethics of Govt Service but applies to All citizens, corporations and govt). To save the costs of conflicts going to court or becoming federal level cases, why not resolve them locally?

Anyone can choose to live by Constitutional principles. I am asking to set up a local model for redressing grievances and mediating conflicts directly. And if this works, then offer such assistance with mediation on a state and national level also.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are asking for a private shari 'a-like "law" to which people can subscribe. That's interesting.

 

[emilynghiem]

To address the concern that Democrats do not take advantage of any Convention to take over with their relativistic interpretations giving any power they want to any party in control

May I ask if there are ANY law firms or lawyers on this list
willing to SUE DEMOCRATS (including Obama and Pelosi) for imposing their partisan political beliefs in the "right to health care" through the ACA mandates? clearly this penalized citizens on the basis of creed, whose beliefs in states' rights (and in not depriving citizens of liberty without due process) were violated by govt enforcing beliefs in the right to health care. By the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens who believe in either creed should have been protected and represented equally.

Suing Democrats for passing an unconstitutional law through federal govt would nationally publicize and help to establish a public agreement that political beliefs, parties, creeds and religions should be respected as EQUAL and SEPARATE and thus CANNOT be imposed on the rest of the nation "by majority rule or by court ruling."

If political beliefs are going to be represented in public policy, then ALL citizens retain equal rights to defend and include diverse beliefs through our respective parties.

...

Can we assemble a legal team to announce this publicly?

To declare our intentions and ask for other legal experts to join in?

The benefit to Democrats and Singlepayer advocates is to join in suing Obama, Pelosi and Democrats in Congress and force them to take responsibility for funding and managing the health care programs on a voluntary basis.

This would be claimed as restitution for passing an unconstitutional bill, and wasting an estimated 24 billion
in tax dollars fighting over it so that it caused a federal shutdown of govt.

The public can demand that these Democrats pay back 24 billion into setting up a voluntarily run system,
on a national level using the resources, structures and networks through the Party system.

So we can ask the people of all parties to join in calling a convention to address this one issue.

That will not allow any Democrats to take over [and control the process and country under their leadership].

It will be about holding Democrats to fix this one bill their leaders passed and reform it to be voluntary choices managed by Party, so that the other Parties can exercise their equal choices and beliefs in free market,
charity and medical educational approaches to health care.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The party in power passes legislation.

The law can be taken to SCOTUS for opinion.

No one is going to be able to change the legislative language in the Constitution without an Amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Suing Democrats for passing an unconstitutional law through federal govt would nationally publicize and help to establish a public agreement" you want to change fundamentally the way our government works.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear John and Paul:

I side with John that there are not enough guarantees to make sure changes, reforms and laws
are made by consent of the people, but that partisan agenda and bias can too easily hijack the process.
We have that going on now with ACA decisions in Congress and Courts that aren't sticking to the Constitution fully.
What makes you think this will magically change if we have a complete rewrite?

May I strongly suggest, as a condition and agreement on any conventions or conferences on
Constitutional reforms, that the participating parties agree to CONSENSUS (98%-100% provided that
any dissenting issues or objections are accounted for and not overridden or denied as invalid)
as the standard process of decisions and resolutions on the writing.

The Greens have been using consensus-based decisions and facilitation in their democratic functions,
with the main problem being how to handle people who block and object but won't offer or accept corrections.
The stipulation I would add to their process is to designate:
which people are input only (if they want to provide suggestions or objections but don't want to resolve conflicts with these)
which people are participants in the entire process (on the condition that whatever they suggest or object to,
they agree to resolve any objections and conflicts until it is agreed upon what unifying points to keep and
what parts all parties agree to separate out and handle another way, even if that requires a consensus on alternatives)
and which people are facilitators and mediators.

Otherwise the objector types can block the consensus process without offering venues for corrections or alternatives.

If CONSENSUS is the agreed standard, then nobody can hijack the process
because the other parties will object. Only a TRUE and freely established
agreement will meet the standard of public law.

Example of a public law passed unanimously by Congress:
Code of Ethics for Govt Service, Public Law 96-303 ethics-commission.net

This webpage shows the minimal laws I would suggest to require
that citizens have knowledge and competency in, in order to have privileges,
legal rights and responsibilities for citizenship.

If you want to have a Constitutional Conference on that, it would certainly help
if people inside and outside govt AGREE on these Constitutional principles,
because right now we clearly don't. We don't agree what is equal due process,
equal protection of beliefs and creeds, and equal representation. Some people's
standards are less than equal, so having a conference on this issue can get
the ball rolling on why we need Consensus to be the standard on law to
prevent political blackballing and bullying by coercion and exclusion.

Are there any GREENS or Libertarians on the List
who believe in the Consensus decision process
and are willing to argue for that as the standard
for facilitating Constitutional reforms and agreements?

Thank you!

Emily Nghiem

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks JakeStarkey

A. You are asking for a private shari 'a-like "law" to which people can subscribe. That's interesting.

B. The party in power passes legislation.

The law can be taken to SCOTUS for opinion.

No one is going to be able to change the legislative language in the Constitution without an Amendment.

C. "Suing Democrats for passing an unconstitutional law through federal govt would nationally publicize and help to establish a public agreement" you want to change fundamentally the way our government works.

Hi JakeStarkey

A. I'm recognizing the parties' platforms, resolutions, and rules as already their inhouse agreements: both their policies for membership, for leadership, and their agenda they believe in. So why not treat that as private political religion where they manage their own programs democratically within that population and structure.

In the case of ACA, the concept of "right to health care through national govt" went too far and was actually implemented into law and made mandatory for the entire nation. This already happened, but not respecting free choice of people or their beliefs. It should have remained free choice.

I'm saying to take that same policy but rein it back in to just the people who agree to the mandates, and organize that through the party networks as an independent program, on state and national levels. Anyone can set up a voluntary program, and within that, just like a religious school or program, the admin can set up rules and mandatory requirements to participate in it. This can still be done nationally, but should remain the free choice to participate in and fund, since health care involves charitable choices and not just mandating insurance as the only choice.

B. This can happen on different levels without conflicting with the current system as you state: (1) to form an agreement first on what ALL parties agree to change BEFORE making any Constitutional amendments (2) agreeing to separate the areas where there is NOT agreement, and agree how to delegate these areas to States or Parties, and then where Constitutional changes are needed, all parties AGREE to where these changes take place and where they aren't necessary. It may not be necessary to make Constitutional changes if the changes happen by agreements with Party policies. Parties are not in the Constitution, so any changes to their platforms and how they work together can be done outside, or can involve state level changes to laws to add Constitutional ethics and mediation as another option to accompany civil and criminal courts and laws. The common process is people of the States and Parties agree first what needs to change and where, BEFORE trying to implement any reforms.

C. Again, agreeing to make changes and pass laws by Consensus happens among the people and parties first, and maybe States.

but the current laws can still be used as is.

Consensus still meets the standards of:
majority-rule
3/4 vote
2/3 vote
Court ruling

It just happens to facilitate the process more smoothly when the parties actually "agree in advance," and have worked out the conflicts with how laws are written or interpreted to address and resolve objections. So when it comes time to vote or to rule, the issues are already settled, and the govt is voting or ruling on something that is either free of conflict or the parties
have agreed that the remaining issues can be decided by the voting or ruling process, and do not adversely affect their beliefs, interests or consent in the matter, but are fully represented.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hi, Emily. There is not such thing as a private political religion in government, per the Constitution.

That is why an amendment would be required.

The ever increasing secularization of the citizens makes that almost impossib.e