emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Through the idea of natural law...It is the simple answer regarding the power of the of People.The franchise is that power; you have to vote them out of office.
I don't understand how this answers the questions posed. Please explain.
But the "power of the people" doesn't include taxing each other, or writing laws which the others must obey, so how do they validly grant these powers to their representatives?
And what is natural law? Does it not dictate that one man may not infringe upon the natural rights of another, including his right not to be subject to violent aggression? So how are you operating within natural law when you vote for a representative to dictate law to others under threat of violent punishment when they are innocent and are not hurting anyone, and when you do not have that right yourself? How are you operating within natural law when you - by proxy - rob me of a portion of my labor via taxation to pay for things you think are important, whether I agree with you or not?
Yes Brian Blackwell
You are spelling out what is wrong with
"involuntary servitude" and
"depriving people of liberty without due process"
to prove what crime was committed by which person.
Thank you, and I will ask C_Clayton_Jones
again, to explain how ACA mandates are not
a violation of freedom of choice by people who
committed no violations to deserve to lose liberty
and "freedom to choose" to pay or provide for
health care by OTHER MEANS besides govt.
the SADDEST thing here Brian is when well meaning liberals
who understand protecting "freedom of choice" from
BELIEFS of OTHERS such as "right to life" which is faith based
to argue this applies to unborn at conception who are not legally recognized persons,
DON'T equally respect "freedom of choice" from
BELIEFS in RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE as a "compelling govt interest"
I argue this constitutes "discrimination by creed" to treat right to life beliefs
one way and right to health care another way through THROUGH GOVT.
You are right, that individuals have the right to discriminate and pay for
our own party platforms of choice, but I'm saying it's unlawful to
push these beliefs through govt which violates equal civil rights of others
and denies "equal protection" of the laws by "discrimination by creed."
This political belief that health care is a right VIOLATES
the political belief of Constitutionalists in limited govt that
has no authority yet to regulate health care without an Amendment
and that votes by Congress on ACA as a public health bill
are not justified by rulings by Courts on ACA as a tax bill,
which treated the bill as two different laws and didn't approve both!
One body passed it as a public health bill but would have rejected it as a tax,
the other ruled it lawful as a tax but rejected it as a public health/general welfare bill!
So it NEVER passed both to meet the govt standards on process.
Further it establishes one political belief while penalizing the other.
So Brian Blackwell what do you think of my argument that
ACA was a violation of civil rights by "discrimination by creed."
ie REGARDLESS if people AGREE or DISAGREE with
* political belief in right to health care
* political belief in limited govt by Constitutional limits
(including the Judicial not having power to rewrite the law from the bench)
Then this STILL violated the beliefs of one by establishing the other!
So the D party leaders Obama and Pelosi who led this process
are guilty of "conspiring to violate equal civil rights" of those
with Constitutional beliefs or beliefs in health care without insurance mandates
and all taxpayers affected have a right to sue them for debts and damages.
That is my argument I presented to C_Clayton_Jones
I offered to set up a class action lawsuit and ask all taxpayers
to TAKE SIDES: either sign up as Plaintiff seeking reimbursement and damages
or argue this ACA process was constitutional and get SUED for damages.
You either support one or the other, either it was proper
or you objected to at least SOME of it. And see who sues whom!
Brian Blackwell do you know any lawyers willing to
push this argument in the public media for consideration?
Last edited: