The 28th would be a grand start
Equal application of the law shouldn't need an Amendment. It should already be done if we had true ethical people in political positions.
If we create an Amendment to say equal application under the law..........would it change whether or not the DOJ would prosecute politicians for breaking the laws already on the books.
No Gov't or Amendment can work without ethical people in these positions...............
Dear
eagle1462010
We already have the Fourteenth Amendment about equal protection of the laws.
A. What we are missing is "political beliefs" are not being checked the same as religious beliefs,
so this isn't equal. Secular beliefs are being pushed through govt, while barring religious beliefs,
so this is causing the very problems the First Amendment was trying to avoid!
B. Also corporations are bypassing checks and balances, so rules in writing need to be
policed on the STATE level where corporations get licensed to operate (and add
to the charters some requirement to respect similar limits as applied to govt as a collective entity)
This would still give STATES the authority to revoke charters for corporations (or political
and religious organizations) that violate due process and other individual protections.
C. as for removing issues that cause conflicts under Federal or State, Criminal or Civil laws:
I suggest setting up local "health and safety ordinances" either per district, city, or state
where things like health care, abortion, drugs, etc. can be decided democratically without
interfering with others of different beliefs, so everyone can fund the programs on terms they agree to pay for.
I've been developing ways to accommodate political beliefs, so this covers a multitude of issues
under minimal places of reform.
For example,
1. recognizing the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Civil Rights laws
on "religion" and "creed" apply to political beliefs as religions or creeds.
We need an agreement written out, as there are already too many conflicts over
the BELIEFs about rights to guns, marriage, abortion, health care, life, etc.
People are already arguing if this is inherent in the Constitutional laws or not,
so we do need to spell out "in general" that political BELIEFS of all these types
are already under Free Exercise of religion and no discrimination by CREED.
So clarifying political beliefs would cover all these areas that people fight over
because we don't agree how much govt should regulate these or not.
We wouldn't need to argue if science can prove this or that about
homosexual or transgender identity because all that can be classified
under FAITH based beliefs, and covered already by religion or creed.
We might need a truce agreement to recognize beliefs on both sides
this way, and to keep those policy choices private, out of govt, or by consensus only
or local agreement if people are able to handle making a group policy on such issues.
NOTE: also, someone suggested that Congress have a vote before
legislation is passed, whether it requires a Constitutional Amendment or not.
so this would address issues of beliefs or procedural limits or process
independent of the content of the bill instead of running these together
and blocking both.
2. Setting up representation by party per Electoral college district.
So people have access to a grievance and mediation process locally
instead of stockpiling everything on a state level and backlogging the federal courts.
3. Separating tax forms where contributors can check boxes for their taxes
to go toward state programs or party platforms.
^ Here is where you don't need to spell out "every single application"
As long as parties group all their issues of faith based and political beliefs
under their platform, the members can just agree to invest taxes there to cover their agenda!
No need to haggle over terms, their whole party takes responsibility for that.
So if both parties don't agree on health care, separate it by state or party.
And let the populations just vote where to enroll for health care plans,
under party, state or national. And nobody dictates terms for anyone else.
eagle1462010 this may seem like a lot to write and work out,
but the broad range of issues that would be covered is worth it.
