Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

What I mean Sneekin
A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
[within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
press and right to petition to redress grievances.

B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.

so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.

C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.

Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.

They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.

And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.

A. Wrong. There most certainly would be slavery, if you allow your example to take root - you are talking about writing religion into the constitution. In KY, there's a church that bans interracial marriage. In several states, there is a religion that allows plural marriage. In some religions, slavery is allowed. Free exercise of my religion could violate state or federal law. Otherwise, you are not allowing me to freely exercise my religion.
B. Doesn't address Atheism, Satanism, parts of Santeria, etc. Some of these religions directly violate the constitution - which is why they can only "freely exercise" between themselves in their church. They can't run for office and say they'll implement slavery, ban interracial marriage, ban catholics, etc.
C. You are forcing me to accept Jesus as Universal Justice -that violates the very first amendment. I really don't care what your interpretation of your bible says. I'm sure that you may not believe my book of scriptures, either (translated by experts from multiple religions and linguists). I have no book of Colossians. Christian law violates Jewish and Islamic laws at certain junctures, as well as Sikh and Buddhist writings. In fact, Buddhists don't even believe in a god. They also believe in continual death and rebirth until one achieves Nirvana, which isn't in your Christian belief system.

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. So then you are wrong in your claims - I can't freely exercise my religion - violation of my first amendment rights. As some Christians will tell you, Slavery is allowed under biblical law. So I DEMAND to have a slave, using your argument.
B. Spiritual Healing has been ruled unconstitutional in certain situations. The law will stay that way. Read your case law governing Jehovah Witness and children.
C. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. There is only CIVIL MARRIAGE. It's not a choice, it cannot be agreed to or rejected by the government, as it doesn't exist. Your religion can refuse to do SSM or Straight marriages under the 1st amendment.

Actually, the government said licensing of only straight couples was illegal. They didn't include gay people, they removed the existing requirement that they be opposite sex. Different from a legal perspective. 14th amendment - equal protection and due process.

Spiritual Healing is religious and violates the 1st amendment. If your private insurance company doesn't receive federal funds, then your company can offer spiritual healing. If it receives government funding (Medicaid, Medicare, etc), then it would violate the 1st amendment - because you are endorsing a religion over another. You've claimed some people don't want to pay for certain procedures - well i certainly don't want to pay for someone handling snakes, rattling beads, speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other forms of spiritual healing.

You can't set up a state recognized religion, so you can't set up spiritual healing that wouldn't impose your religion on me. This is in direct opposition to your other argument, because there is no gay marriage and straight marriage, but simply civil marriage.

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions. So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion. Your definition is NT law. I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery. Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine). Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian. You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible. There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and (translations) a) kissed; b) chastely kissed on the cheek; c) shook hands. Some translations recognize several same sex relationships. Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie. Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century. That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.

Dear Sneekin

1. If you only follow OT law that allows for slavery
and don't follow anything else, then how are you going to claim
religious freedom under the Constitution that isn't in the OT?

Clearly you are invoking other laws OUTSIDE if you are defending your own religion
by the Constitution.

2. by natural laws, whatever religion you are using,
I use that to rebuke you by.

3. and for Christians using different laws or interpretations,
again, for each person I use THEIR system THEY use.
so for each person on earth, and in history, each may have
their OWN principles or standards they answer to.

The atheist answers to their own standards of proof or logic
which may differ from other atheists or secular humanists with
as many variations as there are people who are each unique.

By natural laws, if you are consistent using your own system
then there is no conflict.

I find it is only when we cannot forgive and correct our own
conflicts then we project them on each other and say the problem is the other person.

It is usually a case of removing splinters and beams from our own
eyes at the same time we help a neighbor do the same.
The biases are usually mutual, and I find it take equal give and take
between both people to resolve any conflict they find between them.

People are generally equal. With strengths and weaknesses in different
areas that check and balance each other, where we help each other out.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.
NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
(and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
then ALL people get that.
C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.

Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
I am trying to address these things in context.
the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).

* NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?

While you're promoting the government to get out of the marriage business, you say churches she still be performing marriages.

What you're seeking allows religious heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice; but no one else can.

Given that marriage is a fundamental right for all, religious and secular, straight and gay, why do you think it's ok to protect that right for folks like you, but not for folks like Syriusly, who is an atheist, and not for folks who are gay?

NOPE
1. first I am not saying to do all this, I am saying that if people agrees it solves the problem to be open to such solutions
by my standards, I only go by CONSENT
so if you do not consent to this, that is taken into account in the solution

2. second, the people set up alternatives and agreements BEFORE changing any laws
again I hold to that standard by CONSENT of the governed

Now Faun since I am answering your questions can you answer mine:
3. Do you agree to these same standards of NOT requiring people to go through
options that aren't equally available for all people?

And if so, do you support the ACA mandates that require people to either
go through the govt approved and regulated choices for health care or insurance to avoid penalties,
or wait on STATE ALTERNATIVES to be created that also need to MEET GOVT approval.

if these choices HAVEN'T BEEN implemented yet,
do you agree with laws REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR HEALTH CARE?
OR ELSE FACE FINES?

Please answer that question ^
Thanks Faun

You say, "nope," but your position said, "yes, yes, yes!"

You said you believe churches should marry folks but that the government shouldn't. If such a disaster ever occurred, it would mean exactly that -- religious heterosexual would be about the only people who could get married on the U.S.. At least freely and to the person of their choice.

You may not comprehend this, but it's because of people like you that the government is in the business of marriage; as well as securing all other rights as well.

As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.

Dear Faun
I believe govt should accommodate ALL These beliefs equally
1. people who want to go through church to marry
2. people who want to go through govt
3. people who want both, or neither, or some other way
So how do we set up a system that allows any combination of these
without imposing on anyone with different beliefs?

Our system does accommodate exactly that
1- if a couple wants to marry through a church- then they can be married through a church.
2- if a couple wants to marry, but not through a church- then they can be married outside a church.
3- if a couple wants both- then they can do both.
4.- if a couple wants neither- well then they are not married- and our system accommodates that also.

Whatever any of those couples do- do not impose on the beliefs of anyone else?

Why would a Jewish couple marrying in a synogogue be imposing on the beliefs of a Christian who doesn't believe in the Jewish faith?

Dear Syriusly
There is disagreement on terms of using govt to marry people.
Faun said it isn't enough for govt to just do civil contracts but actual marriages.

The people who are arguing that gay marriage violates beliefs
have no problem with atheists marrying through govt, or people of different races, but do not
believe in govt endorsing same sex couples.

So there is conflict in beliefs regarding terms of marriage by which govt can conduct these.

The difference with private institutions is they don't have to be agreed upon by the public.
But Faun was saing it's not fair to require all people to go through private means
because not all people have access to these.

so would the same people objecting to same sex couples marrying through govt
be willing to help set up private means by which all people can access the same
WITHOUT going through govt which represents everyone, if that is the cause of objection.

The other option I proposed is to offer a concession:
A. if the objectors tolerate the use of govt to conduct same sex marriages which violate their beliefs even though this isn't imposed directly
B. would they accept the equivalent concession of allowing spiritual healing prayer
as a choice through govt health care so all people can access that as a free CHOICE
that isn't imposed directly

I believe many people might consider this equal concession where both sides
give and take to the same degree, instead of trying to ban the other from govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sneekin

A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.

I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/

This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
[Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]

Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!

Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.

B. So in general
NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET

I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.

The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.

Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.

At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.

If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,

Thanks!

Emily,
I don't think you grasp how government works. Your representatives are elected, then they represent you. Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's. Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress APPROVED it. You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts. They represented you. PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it. Like it or not, you were represented. Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off). One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are. The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.

If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.

While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us. My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease. It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good. My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35. She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock. She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later. So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars. Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million. Insurance? Would pay for it. You refuse insurance? You expect ME to pay for it? That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.

Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect. That's really funny, since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated. The ACA is LAW. Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have. There are checks and balances. And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick? I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance. Live in a nice house? I'll take it. Nice car? keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car. After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health. And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections. I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids. Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth control, perhaps?

Dear Sneekin
0. first of all, slavery used to be enforced by courts and recognized by law.
but that was abolished. so just because ACA was passed does not mean it
cannot be changed. DOMA was also changed after it was passed.

A. RE: ACA
The reps in Congress (legislative)
and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
ALL DEMOCRATS.

The Republicans voted NO..

The Texas Democratic Party platform openly states
"We BELIEVE health care is a right not a privilege"
Thus it is clearly a political BELIEF.

So essentially the Democrats in Congress and the President used or abused
their positions in govt to establish a NATIONAL BELIEF system
that all citizens are required to follow or be fined by federal govt.

B. Now YOU believe that by democratic process, the votes and process
are legit and legal and thus they have the right to pass and enforce this.

C. by my beliefs about equal protection of political beliefs,
NO, this is a violation of Constitutional ethics* by putting PARTY
before oath of office to defend the Constitution which includes
equal protection of the law for ALL CITIZENS not just ones of the
dominating voting party. I argue this is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

* www.ethics-commission.net
Any person in Government service should:

"I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

I argue that Obama and Democrats in Congress violated the First Amendment to the Constitution by imposing and enforcing a law that was KNOWN to contain such a strong bias in beliefs toward the "right to health care" in violation of "state rights" that all the Republicans who believe in states rights voted NO; these beliefs were NOT treated equally under this law, and therefore all the Congress members pushing it abused their offices to conspire to VIOLATE equal civil rights and liberties of other citizens, discriminated against BY CREED in violation of 14th Amendment equal protections of law. The votes in Congress stand as PROOF of this well established BIAS, and yet all those Congress members continued to endorse this law anyway.

D. I further argue the Supreme Court was equally split close to 50/50
so that the decision to approve ACA as constitutional still shows
a split, it reflect the same 50/50 split in Congress that shows the
people of the nation are divided close to 50/50 on this.
[Please see previous explanation that the ACA was passed through Congress as a PUBLIC HEALTH BILL NOT A TAX which would have failed; but approved through Court as a TAX BILL though it was never voted on as that; thus ACA did NOT pass through both Congress and Court as the same bill, but the interpretation made it a different bill that didn't finish the full process.
In order to correct this, either it has to be kicked back to Congress to pass as a tax bill,
and/or people have to agree to pass a Constitutional Amendment giving federal govt this authority that otherwise belongs to states. I also recommend to states to divide health care policy and taxes by party policy, so that taxpayers may still have a choice whether to go through state or federal levels to access and manage the plan of their choosing as represented by their party.]

so to represent all people equally according to their beliefs,
that's why I argue to make the mandates OPTIONAL,
allow both the existing ACA as a choice for you and others who
support it and/or take responsibility for funding it until it is reformed
closer to singlepayer or whatever those Democrats are representing
for their constituency; and let the Republicans and free market advocates
opt into and develop their own track based on the proposed revisions without mandates.

That would represent more of the public
and give equal free choice to fund the policy consistent
with the beliefs of the main groups lobbying for one policy or another.

E. Lastly, I do not believe in imposing this option but believe in free choice by consent
of the people. So let me PROPOSE to divide it by party and set up systems of
representation and resources mgmt where both parties can manage their own
membership and policies that support their values beliefs taxation and representation.

I happen to believe that offering this system would allow BOTH the sides
to implement and develop their policies equally and freely, instead of compromising
one or the other or both by fighting for one policy to be imposed for all people.

Given the 50/50 split in beliefs along party lines, I don't think that is possible
without separating the choices and offering them both for taxpayers to choose.

 

[Syriusly]

While you're promoting the government to get out of the marriage business, you say churches she still be performing marriages.

What you're seeking allows religious heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice; but no one else can.

Given that marriage is a fundamental right for all, religious and secular, straight and gay, why do you think it's ok to protect that right for folks like you, but not for folks like Syriusly, who is an atheist, and not for folks who are gay?

NOPE
1. first I am not saying to do all this, I am saying that if people agrees it solves the problem to be open to such solutions
by my standards, I only go by CONSENT
so if you do not consent to this, that is taken into account in the solution

2. second, the people set up alternatives and agreements BEFORE changing any laws
again I hold to that standard by CONSENT of the governed

Now Faun since I am answering your questions can you answer mine:
3. Do you agree to these same standards of NOT requiring people to go through
options that aren't equally available for all people?

And if so, do you support the ACA mandates that require people to either
go through the govt approved and regulated choices for health care or insurance to avoid penalties,
or wait on STATE ALTERNATIVES to be created that also need to MEET GOVT approval.

if these choices HAVEN'T BEEN implemented yet,
do you agree with laws REQUIRING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR HEALTH CARE?
OR ELSE FACE FINES?

Please answer that question ^
Thanks Faun

You say, "nope," but your position said, "yes, yes, yes!"

You said you believe churches should marry folks but that the government shouldn't. If such a disaster ever occurred, it would mean exactly that -- religious heterosexual would be about the only people who could get married on the U.S.. At least freely and to the person of their choice.

You may not comprehend this, but it's because of people like you that the government is in the business of marriage; as well as securing all other rights as well.

As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.

Dear Faun
I believe govt should accommodate ALL These beliefs equally
1. people who want to go through church to marry
2. people who want to go through govt
3. people who want both, or neither, or some other way
So how do we set up a system that allows any combination of these
without imposing on anyone with different beliefs?

Our system does accommodate exactly that
1- if a couple wants to marry through a church- then they can be married through a church.
2- if a couple wants to marry, but not through a church- then they can be married outside a church.
3- if a couple wants both- then they can do both.
4.- if a couple wants neither- well then they are not married- and our system accommodates that also.

Whatever any of those couples do- do not impose on the beliefs of anyone else?

Why would a Jewish couple marrying in a synogogue be imposing on the beliefs of a Christian who doesn't believe in the Jewish faith?

Dear Syriusly
There is disagreement on terms of using govt to marry people.
Faun said it isn't enough for govt to just do civil contracts but actual marriages.

The people who are arguing that gay marriage violates beliefs
have no problem with atheists marrying through govt, or people of different races, but do not
believe in govt endorsing same sex couples..

Emily the same people who object to 'gay marriage' also objected to legal alternative (equal but different) arrangements such as civil partnerships- when the good Christians of Georgia passed the law to ban gay marriage, they also passed a law to ban any recognition of any civil partnerships.

And of course there are people to this day who object to mixed race couples marrying- in church or out of church.

None of us have any right to an alternative to marriage- but we do have a right to marriage.
My wife and I are married- and if anyone has an issue with that- that is their problem- not ours.
If anyone has problems with my wonderful friend who married his partner a year, that is their problem not my friends.

It is not possible to find a compromise that EVERYONE will agree to.

But it is possible to extend legal marriage to everyone- and now we have.

 

[Sneekin]

P.S. Faun and Sneekin
A. I took your advice and rested.
I even missed a call from my mother to catch up on sleep!

Thanks for your concern; the most pressing issue is to
delegate these problems to the people who have asked to
organize the plans by radio outreach, and speed up the process
of getting all of these off of me and my paychecks to carry which have run out.
Govt should have redressed these grievances UP FRONT, and I was only
acting as emergency measures to cap and do damage control
until this gets resolved correctly, without depending on my "slave labor"
to pay the costs of govt abuses that went on for longer than we could afford.

The more people I find willing to take this on correctly, the less stress on me,
and the more I can talk like normal with my family and friends insetad of arguing
how long is this situation going to impair me.

Sneekin as a teacher in law, you should know that legal abuse happens.
Because not all people can afford equal legal defense, big corporations that
can afford to sue cities if they don't get to develop have more voice and "REPRESENTATION"
in govt than people with no money trying to defend historic preservation interests that
aren't counted in the equation like development is that determines property value and taxes.
Unless there is MONEY to buy out the property, people don't have equal rights and protections.
You should know this as a law professor, or what are you teaching your students?

Key Note: The reason I am proposing a privatized system through govt is to accommodate restitution involving govt but which has to be funded voluntarily where Statutes have run and cannot be mandated by law. The Federal Reserve is partially private involving banks; I'm saying to set up other accounts through the Fed for voluntary restitution to be paid to redress grievances that exceed the capacity of govt. If we don't find a way to redress grievances that go beyond govt jurisdiction, then corporations that destroy communities and evidence of wrongdoing mean that affected citizens go without equal protection and right to redress grievances. Suing after the fact doesn't restore the damages lost, and these damages cannot always be proven in advance to prevent corporations from taking action to cause them; so rights are being violated that cannot always be restored using the given system. So that is one area that I have been proposing solutions for. It make take executive orders from Govt at state or federal levels, but those should be by consensus of the people or that can be argued as unconstitutional. Either way, this requires consensus to be formed either inside or outside govt, before means can be set up to Represent that consensus.

P.S. Sneekin

B. the same way you are saying "spiritual healing" can be done in private without implementing the CHOICE through govt,
you and Faun and Syriusly are saying it's not fair to treat marriages that way, but ALL people should be able to go through govt
to get MARRIED NOT JUST TO GET LICENSED FOR CIVIL CONTRACTS BUT TO DO THE ACTUAL CEREMONY

so I am saying treat these options the same!

If you are ENDORSING federal govt CONTROLLING AND REGULATING ALL CHOICES OF HEALTH CARE
then Spiritual Healing as one of those choices would HAVE to get endorsed and approved by govt as an option.

If you are saying this remains private, then GET HEALTH CARE OUT OF GOVT.
And so should personal means of marriage be left in private.

What are we going to do then?
Keep the FACILITIES public, but ALLOW people to bring in their OWN staff and services
to conduct their OWN services for spiritual healing, marriage, etc. so that this isn't endorsed by govt???

C. also Syriusly and Faun
I totally sympathize with what you are saying about not taking marriage away from others.
I cannot even get married under the given choices that don't accommodate me either!

These have not been set up yet, that could handle marrying one person who doesn't
believe in going through church and the other who doesn't believe in going through the state.

I think by the time I set up a system that would work for this situation,
then anyone would be accommodated equally!

Emily,

My previous response covers most of your comments (HINT: YOU ARE NOT CORRECT) - You can't grieve when you have nothing to grieve (even though you can't grieve the ACA, you could grieve something not paid by the ACA, if the ACA stated something would be paid (ie, yearly physical, free).

No one, not even Obama or Romney said government needs to control Health Care (although single payer works in most every 1st world nation). If you already had insurance, and it covered the bare minimums, you wouldn't be signing up for anything. I've never signed up for anything, and if the ACA would be around for the next 40 years, I wouldn't be going to the exchanges. That being said, the handling of snakes, rattling beads, praying over people, or beating children because one thinks they are possessed is NOT medicine, and is NOT health care. It is RELIGION. Can't you grasp that? First amendment violation - it won't be covered by any FEDERALLY BACKED INSURANCE - that is quite a few insurances - and leaves a bare minimum, usually self insured smaller business like Hobby Lobby, who refuse BC pills when medically required for other than Birth Control purposes. I personally don't find it very Christian for someone making a little over minimum wage, that's a devout Catholic, be told by a business like Hobby Lobby that they would rather that woman die than cover the pill. And contrary to foolishness put out by right to life groups and Ted Cruz, birth control isn't 10.00 a month. For a woman in Texas and other states trying to ban PP, a doctor's visit, required yearly in most states, can run 200.00. Birth control pills, without insurance, cost up to 120 a month depending on brand, composition, etc. Even cheaper ones can be 40-50 a month around here, a metro area of slightly over 1/4 Million, if one doesn't go to PP.

BTW, referencing my previous letter - we lived right outside of Chicago, and had access to the top Hospitals and centers in the US.

 

[Syriusly]

Dear Sneekin

A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.

I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/

This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
[Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]

Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!

Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.

B. So in general
NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET

I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.

The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.

Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.

At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.

If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,

Thanks!

Emily,
I don't think you grasp how government works. Your representatives are elected, then they represent you. Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's. Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress APPROVED it. You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts. They represented you. PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it. Like it or not, you were represented. Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off). One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are. The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.

If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.

While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us. My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease. It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good. My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35. She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock. She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later. So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars. Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million. Insurance? Would pay for it. You refuse insurance? You expect ME to pay for it? That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.

Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect. That's really funny, since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated. The ACA is LAW. Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have. There are checks and balances. And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick? I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance. Live in a nice house? I'll take it. Nice car? keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car. After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health. And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections. I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids. Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth control, perhaps?

Dear Sneekin
A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
ALL DEMOCRATS.

The Republicans voted NO..

The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat

Emily,

In the next Congress, you can expect to see laws passed by the majority Republicans without a single Democrat voting yes.

That is how our system works- we are a representational Democracy- when the majority of Congress can vote in a law- that becomes the law for all of us.

I am sure I won't like some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress- but I won't be pretending that they didn't do it legally.

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Sneekin

A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.

I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/

This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
[Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]

Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!

Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.

B. So in general
NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET

I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.

The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.

Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.

At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.

If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,

Thanks!

Emily,
I don't think you grasp how government works. Your representatives are elected, then they represent you. Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's. Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress APPROVED it. You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts. They represented you. PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it. Like it or not, you were represented. Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off). One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are. The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.

If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.

While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us. My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease. It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good. My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35. She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock. She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later. So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars. Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million. Insurance? Would pay for it. You refuse insurance? You expect ME to pay for it? That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.

Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect. That's really funny, since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated. The ACA is LAW. Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have. There are checks and balances. And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick? I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance. Live in a nice house? I'll take it. Nice car? keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car. After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health. And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections. I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids. Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth control, perhaps?

Dear Sneekin
A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
ALL DEMOCRATS.

The Republicans voted NO..

The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat

Emily - you were also a Democrat (or at least not Republicans, who tried to vote down the ACA). You are being a hypocrite now.

a) You need to learn what the branches of government do. Congress has to propose the law, debate, make changes, and vote. It passes by a majority or fails by a majority.

b) The president either signs into law or vetoes after it's been passed (PERIOD).

c) Only then can the courts get involved. They were involved. You don't have a leg to stand on.

Political affiliation has NOTHING to do with anything - most bills are partisan - does that make them any less valid? Republicans are trying to make a national FADA. If it passes, it would be partisan. Does it make it less of a law? No. Do people have recourse? Yes - the courts.

 

[Sneekin]

Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.

I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
so both are included represented and protected equally.
Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.

I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.

(If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
a form of discrimination for political expedience.)

One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.

I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.

NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
the other views at the same time.

And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.

Makes no sense..

Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE

How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?

Here's an example rightwinger

A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
if all residents happen to agree on terms.

Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
(and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.

So it could be agreed upon that an act
resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.

so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.

It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.

We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.

B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
anything to do with abortion.

If the left wants right to health care through govt,
why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.

That is both prochoice and prolife!

300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...

The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?

Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
How do you reconcile that?

Dear rightwinger
1. if there cannot be a consensus then both sides should agree to separate,
and where that isn't fully possible, they should agree to mutual concessions where BOTH sides agree that is the best that can be done.
that would be fair to both.

2. What I tell my prolife friends is they themselves are PROOF
that abortion can be prevented and ended WITHOUT BANNING IT.
Because THEY don't require it to be banned by law for THEM to
do what they do, which is purely through offering better CHOICES
and education to PREVENT abortion. That's enough to wipe it out.
One prolife advocate I spoke with doesn't think this is possible but
believe in promoting better birth control as the solution. Great!
So let's work together on that instead of working against each other.
If we use all resources to focus on where we AGREE will prevent abortion,
that's better than wasting resources fighting where we disagree.

So of all the prolife people I've talked with, the real reason they don't
think the laws are enough is that the prochoice people keep rejecting
their efforts to stop abortion, so they think these people are pro ABORTION instead of prochoice.
If prochoice people work WITH prolife to prevent abortion as much as possible,
they wouldn't feel the need to ban it to stop it.

3. for the hardcore people who don't want govt legalizing it in any form,
that's where I recommend to separate those taxpayers funding and let
them pay under a health care track that is prolife with no abortion.
And same with people who are against death penalty and costs of war,
and want health care, let them separate tracks and pay for life not death!

So separation is possible where people have strong beliefs as conscientious objectors.
I don't think that will divide people any more than we already are along political or religious beliefs,
but will have the opposite effect and allow people to unite, when they can all have their
own way and don't have to compete to force everyone to pay for policies they don't believe in.

Emily,

I'm hoping this helps all of the religious nuts and those people thinking they have a right to consensus on every governmental issue.

Watch this video . The lyrics are here: Schoolhouse Rock:I'm Just A Bill

This is a "cute" way of putting it down into very simple terms, how involved the process is. In a democracy you may get a vote, but as you see, we are not one, otherwise, Hillary Clinton would be president - she won the popular vote, Trump appears to have the Electoral College votes - but they haven't voted yet).

We are a Republic - US definition: Rule by elected individuals representing the citizen body and exercising power according to the rule of law.

Post Script: DOMA wasn't changed. Parts have been struck down as illegal/invalid. Nothing, however, changed - it was INVALIDATED.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ok Sneekin is this a better example:
I believe in defending both prochoice and prolife equally.
That makes me neither all one or all the other, but a third special case of defending both.

I believe this requires laws to be based on consensus between people of the other beliefs.
so both are included represented and protected equally.
Not everyone believes in this or that it is possible,
thus all three are political beliefs by my approach.

I have a unique perspective that all abortion can be prevented 100% by free choice,
as prolife advocates already operate completely by free choice not force of law,
so that we CAN meet the standards of both prolife by eliminating abortion this way,
and of free choice by not banning or punishing abortion in order to achieve the prolife goals.

(If you define prolife as only the belief that abortion should be illegal or banned,
then you exclude me, and you call me prochoice only; but what makes me different
is I DON'T believe prochoice can be imposed without consent of prolife or it's
a form of discrimination for political expedience.)

One condition by which I would agree to prolife bans on abortion
is if prochoice people AGREE to those laws by consensus.
so consensus is the standard I support to defend beliefs
of both prochoice and prolife, recognizing that prochoice
can accommodate prolife inclusively but not vice versa
unless there is a consensus on law by free choice.

I apply this same standard to beliefs on marriage as well.
So that makes me different, with some traits of both sides,
but without the belief that it is fair to impose one without the consent of the other.

NOTE: I honestly believe that if govt were to incorporate mediation to include
my beliefs, this would also help protect the other two beliefs from infringement
from each other. So that's why I push three times as hard to defend consensus
and conflict resolution as a more Constitutionally inclusive standard; not only would
it allow my beliefs to be exercised more freely, without constant harassment and
threats of censorship, but it would help stop harassment and threats to people of
the other views at the same time.

And the same system would help with all other issues like the marriage
and gun rights issues, that people get so defensive about out of fear
the other party will try to push their beliefs at the expense of others.

Makes no sense..

Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE

How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?

Here's an example rightwinger

A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
if all residents happen to agree on terms.

Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
(and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.

So it could be agreed upon that an act
resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.

so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.

It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.

We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.

B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
anything to do with abortion.

If the left wants right to health care through govt,
why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.

That is both prochoice and prolife!

300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...

The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?

Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
How do you reconcile that?

Dear rightwinger
1. if there cannot be a consensus then both sides should agree to separate,
and where that isn't fully possible, they should agree to mutual concessions where BOTH sides agree that is the best that can be done.
that would be fair to both.

2. What I tell my prolife friends is they themselves are PROOF
that abortion can be prevented and ended WITHOUT BANNING IT.
Because THEY don't require it to be banned by law for THEM to
do what they do, which is purely through offering better CHOICES
and education to PREVENT abortion. That's enough to wipe it out.
One prolife advocate I spoke with doesn't think this is possible but
believe in promoting better birth control as the solution. Great!
So let's work together on that instead of working against each other.
If we use all resources to focus on where we AGREE will prevent abortion,
that's better than wasting resources fighting where we disagree.

So of all the prolife people I've talked with, the real reason they don't
think the laws are enough is that the prochoice people keep rejecting
their efforts to stop abortion, so they think these people are pro ABORTION instead of prochoice.
If prochoice people work WITH prolife to prevent abortion as much as possible,
they wouldn't feel the need to ban it to stop it.

3. for the hardcore people who don't want govt legalizing it in any form,
that's where I recommend to separate those taxpayers funding and let
them pay under a health care track that is prolife with no abortion.
And same with people who are against death penalty and costs of war,
and want health care, let them separate tracks and pay for life not death!

So separation is possible where people have strong beliefs as conscientious objectors.
I don't think that will divide people any more than we already are along political or religious beliefs,
but will have the opposite effect and allow people to unite, when they can all have their
own way and don't have to compete to force everyone to pay for policies they don't believe in.

Emily,

I'm hoping this helps all of the religious nuts and those people thinking they have a right to consensus on every governmental issue.

Watch this video . The lyrics are here: Schoolhouse Rock:I'm Just A Bill

This is a "cute" way of putting it down into very simple terms, how involved the process is. In a democracy you may get a vote, but as you see, we are not one, otherwise, Hillary Clinton would be president - she won the popular vote, Trump appears to have the Electoral College votes - but they haven't voted yet).

We are a Republic - US definition: Rule by elected individuals representing the citizen body and exercising power according to the rule of law.

Post Script: DOMA wasn't changed. Parts have been struck down as illegal/invalid. Nothing, however, changed - it was INVALIDATED.

Dear Sneekin
Sorry but democratic voting does NOT apply to religious beliefs.
Govt is NOT supposed to establish faith-based biases or systems
REGARDLESS how the voting goes! It's still unconstitutional.

Now, where you and I disagree:
You don't consider political beliefs to be governed under the First Amendment
as I do.

so that IN ITSELF is a difference in BELIEFS!

You have NO RIGHT to abuse govt and laws to impose YOUR interpretation
that political and secular beliefs don't count
AND
I DO NOT have that right EITHER to impose MY beliefs that they do!

Thus the First Amendment still applies:
Govt can neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise
of YOUR beliefs or MINE
REGARDLESS OF DEMOCRATIC VOTE.

That's why I believe in consensus,
to protect both your beliefs and mine from imposition by the other.

so NO SORRY Mr. Law Professor
You do NOT have the right to subject anyone's BELIEFS up to VOTE by GOVT OR THROUGH GOVT
*UNLESS PEOPLE CONSENT TO HAVE THEIR BELIEFS VOTED ON THIS WAY*

I DO NOT CONSENT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION TO DO SO.

If you want to debate this publicly,
let's do it.

Ask your students and your school to set up a national conference
on whether the ACA incorporates or imposes a bias in political beliefs
and if it is discriminatory to force compliance on citizens of other beliefs under penalty of law.

I'd LOVE to see that debated between all the law schools across the country.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sneekin

A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.

I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/

This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
[Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]

Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!

Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.

B. So in general
NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET

I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.

The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.

Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.

At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.

If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,

Thanks!

Emily,
I don't think you grasp how government works. Your representatives are elected, then they represent you. Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's. Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress APPROVED it. You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts. They represented you. PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it. Like it or not, you were represented. Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off). One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are. The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.

If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.

While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us. My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease. It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good. My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35. She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock. She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later. So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars. Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million. Insurance? Would pay for it. You refuse insurance? You expect ME to pay for it? That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.

Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect. That's really funny, since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated. The ACA is LAW. Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have. There are checks and balances. And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick? I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance. Live in a nice house? I'll take it. Nice car? keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car. After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health. And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections. I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids. Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth control, perhaps?

Dear Sneekin
A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
ALL DEMOCRATS.

The Republicans voted NO..

The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat

Emily - you were also a Democrat (or at least not Republicans, who tried to vote down the ACA). You are being a hypocrite now.

a) You need to learn what the branches of government do. Congress has to propose the law, debate, make changes, and vote. It passes by a majority or fails by a majority.

b) The president either signs into law or vetoes after it's been passed (PERIOD).

c) Only then can the courts get involved. They were involved. You don't have a leg to stand on.

Political affiliation has NOTHING to do with anything - most bills are partisan - does that make them any less valid? Republicans are trying to make a national FADA. If it passes, it would be partisan. Does it make it less of a law? No. Do people have recourse? Yes - the courts.

Dear Sneekin
0. No, I am not a hypocrite on this one
A. I am a Democrat, but as a Constitutionalist FIRST I have consistently OPPOSED
imposing mandates on health care I have argued are ANTI CHOICE and violate
Democratic Party principles. I put Constitutional equality first BEFORE party, as I believe
right to health care can be established freely WITHOUT imposing this belief or policy on others.
B. To show I would not ask anyone to do what I am not willing to do,
even though I feel I am a VICTIM of Democratic party oppression and abuse,
I am still WILLING to be a PARTY to any suit or demand/petition to CORRECT the
problems and abuses caused by Democratic party leadership.
so this is like the rape victim offering to help the rapist to raise the money for restitution for the rape that I protested the whole time, because I'd rather see restitution and recovery SO MUCH
I am WILLING to help those that CAUSED the wrongs to fix them . To make sure that gets done!

Where am I a hypocrite?
And I believe in doing all this by CONSENSUS not coercion, too.
So I am not a hypocrite in enforcing consent as the standard for these corrections I seek.

1. I am not trying to bypass the process but to correct what went wrong WITH the given process.

a. The bill was passed through Congress as a Public Health Bill NOT a tax bill or it would have failed
b. The bill was ARGUED as a tax bill and argued and passed through Courts as that.
c. So it did NOT pass through both Congress and Courts as the SAME BILL.
Essentially TWO different bills were approved, one as a public health bill
the other as a tax! So if it is going to pass both Congress and Courts,
it needs to HAVE BEEN VOTED ON BY Congress and PASSED AS A TAX BILL.
It should have been rejected by the court and kicked back to Congress to change first,
OR ELSE THE JUDICIARY IS ACTING AS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY BY CHANGING THE BILL INSTEAD OF CONGRESS REVISING IT.
d. Or else REVISE it to make the mandates OPTIONAL:
tag on the Republican version as an EQUAL OPTION and offer BOTH.
So NOBODY can argue that one party's biased beliefs are being imposed or the other.
offer BOTH.

2. I AGREE with going through either Congress or Courts
but the FIRST step, since I believe in consensus and NOT coercion,
is to form an AGREEMENT WITH THE PUBLIC FIRST,
THEN AFTER we agree what to change the policies to,
THEN we go through Congress or Courts to do the formal process.

3. And why do you think Cruz is a joke? He is a Constitutionalist.
He agrees that tax laws need to be reformed. Why not propose to separate
social legislation by party so people who would rather fund education and health
care can do so, instead of funding war and the death penalty; while those who
want to fund military and VA reform can invest there instead of on welfare and
health care under rules they don't believe federal govt has authority to regulate!

[Add to that, the proposal for a restitution system that allows credits to be assessed
and collected back for taxpayers use, based on abuses by govt where public resources
went to illicit, unauthorized, unconstitutional, wasteful or corrupt spending; and we could
have all parties going after wrongs and abuses and collecting enough reimbursements
or credits to fund the reforms they want to be in charge of. It doesn't have to cost taxpayers
more money than we have already spent, if we go after past abuses, and either charge the
wrongdoers the costs including legal expenses and damages incurred, or buy out those
debts by selling to private investors who fund the corrections on terms they agree to instead of charging taxpayers who don't agree to pay these costs. why not reward citizens for buying out
shares and responsibility for fixing these problems. I'm willing to help do the work, and ask leaders of both parties to invest a portion of their campaign funds into setting up jobs in this.]

Dear Sneekin

A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.

I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/

This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
[Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]

Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!

Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.

B. So in general
NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET

I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.

The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.

Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.

At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.

If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,

Thanks!

Emily,
I don't think you grasp how government works. Your representatives are elected, then they represent you. Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's. Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress APPROVED it. You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts. They represented you. PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it. Like it or not, you were represented. Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off). One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are. The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.

If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.

While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us. My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease. It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good. My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35. She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock. She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later. So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars. Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million. Insurance? Would pay for it. You refuse insurance? You expect ME to pay for it? That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.

Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect. That's really funny, since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated. The ACA is LAW. Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have. There are checks and balances. And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick? I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance. Live in a nice house? I'll take it. Nice car? keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car. After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health. And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections. I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids. Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth control, perhaps?

Dear Sneekin
A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
ALL DEMOCRATS.

The Republicans voted NO..

The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat

Emily - you were also a Democrat (or at least not Republicans, who tried to vote down the ACA). You are being a hypocrite now.

a) You need to learn what the branches of government do. Congress has to propose the law, debate, make changes, and vote. It passes by a majority or fails by a majority.

b) The president either signs into law or vetoes after it's been passed (PERIOD).

c) Only then can the courts get involved. They were involved. You don't have a leg to stand on.

Political affiliation has NOTHING to do with anything - most bills are partisan - does that make them any less valid? Republicans are trying to make a national FADA. If it passes, it would be partisan. Does it make it less of a law? No. Do people have recourse? Yes - the courts.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sneekin

A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.

I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/

This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
[Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]

Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!

Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.

B. So in general
NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET

I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.

The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.

Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.

At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.

If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,

Thanks!

Emily,
I don't think you grasp how government works. Your representatives are elected, then they represent you. Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's. Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress APPROVED it. You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts. They represented you. PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it. Like it or not, you were represented. Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off). One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are. The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.

If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.

While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us. My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease. It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good. My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35. She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock. She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later. So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars. Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million. Insurance? Would pay for it. You refuse insurance? You expect ME to pay for it? That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.

Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect. That's really funny, since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated. The ACA is LAW. Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have. There are checks and balances. And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick? I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance. Live in a nice house? I'll take it. Nice car? keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car. After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health. And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections. I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids. Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth control, perhaps?

Dear Sneekin
A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
ALL DEMOCRATS.

The Republicans voted NO..

The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat

Emily,

In the next Congress, you can expect to see laws passed by the majority Republicans without a single Democrat voting yes.

That is how our system works- we are a representational Democracy- when the majority of Congress can vote in a law- that becomes the law for all of us.

I am sure I won't like some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress- but I won't be pretending that they didn't do it legally.

Especially with Constitutionalists, Syriusly,
NO they should know better than to pass biased laws
that violate beliefs of others.

Free market health care is fine for those who believe in that and agree to support it.
For those who believe in going through govt for singlepayer health care,
that is an equal political belief people have equal right to exercise if they fund it themselves as well!

So why not set up both tracks and let taxpayers vote, pay and organize under
the programs as they believe in setting up their ways. Health care is supposed to
remain a private choice, so let people choose!

 

[emilynghiem]

I said NO to all three.
A. for slavery this is against religious freedom of the people being enslaved.
their right to petition to redress grievances.
Notice the First Amendment does not specify which people invoke it.
It actually represents a natural law that applies to ALL people by our nature.
If we followed that, then there would be no slavery or oppression.
it checks itself, and all other laws can be defended under it
with the same respect to "freedom and peaceable assembly" of others.
NOBODY's religious freedom would be abused to disparage the same of others
if we follow this law in full and in context, even using it to check itself.

B. Right, you cannot impose your religious beliefs or biases on others.
The govt is not supposed to be used to establish any religion.
That is NOT what I am asking.
1. first we PROVE that spiritual healing is natural and and equal CHOICE
for people without imposing, as it does not work that way
2. then just like marriage or gay marriage we open up laws to ADD it as a choice,
where govt is not ENDORSING it any more or any less than ENDORSING gay marriage

C. NOPE if you read my message I am saying it remains free choice
at the same level as choosing to agree with or reject gay marriage as a choice for others even if you don't believe or engage in it yourself!

Let's start over here ^ Sneekin
how would you describe the equivalent process of
* govt allowing the licensing of marriage to include gay couples
* govt allowing the state health alternatives to include spiritual healing

If you are saying gay marriage is an equal choice that doesn't impose or "force" anyone to change their beliefs
or accept it,
how can we set up the same for spiritual healing to be an "equal choice that doesn't FORCE or IMPOSE."

Can you explain it to me that way, how gay marriage doesn't force anyone
so how to do the same with spiritual healig where it doesn't force anyone???

A. And as i told you, no slavery violates my rights. My religion allows slavery to this day. You VIOLATE MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. You are prohibiting me from the full performance of my religion.

B. 1) Spiritual healing is religious. I don't care if it's equal choice, it violates the 1st amendment if it receives government funding
B 2) There is no such thing as gay marriage. The Civil Marriage law was not opened up and added NOTHING as a CHOICE. The law imposes NOTHING on ANYONE. The Government isn't endorsing Gay Marriage, Straight Marriage. It allows couples to get marriage, if THEY CHOOSE. No endorsement at all, never has been.
C) A religion can reject gay marriage (religious marriage). It can refuse to officiate a civil marriage between same sex partners. You, as a US citizen cannot choose to agree or reject MARRIAGE except as an opinion. No one is forced to change any beliefs. You must comprehend that MARRIAGE is a RIGHT.. Can you explain to me how CIVIL MARRIAGE forces anyone to do anything? You keep combining religious matrimony with civil marriage. Quite a difference.

Sneekin

A. And I would tell you that you have the right to exercise slavery VOLUNTARILY
with those who AGREE to it as you do. If you agree to be enslaved, such as for charity,
and providing free health care at no cost to others, you are free to do so.
but by the same Bible you claim endorses slavery,
* it says to love one another as equal neighbors.
* it says to obey human institutions and civil authority,
so if laws say no involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime prescribed by law
then you as a believer would accept this rebuke and correction.

B. as for spiritual healing
I am asking for the same thing that applies for marriage

if people choose to endorse it or engage in it,
it is by free choice and not imposed.

so how can this be done for spiritual healing
as it is for marriage?

A) Voluntary slavery is contradictory - and where did I say I used YOUR bible? My bible says none of what you put down.
B) Spiritual healing, for the 10th time, violates the first amendment. Marriage is a contract. Spiritual healing can be just about any religious thing, such as snake handling, beatings (beat the demon), beads, rattles, feathers, prayers, speaking in tongues, prayer chains, etc. Since it directly violates the US Constitution by receipt of federal funding.

The same thing that applies for marriage? The difference is Marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT and you want to impose YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS into MY HEALTHCARE. Marriage is upheld by the 14th, faith healing VIOLATES the first.

Dear Sneekin
A. then I find out what your religion, belief or Bible does say.
And if you are using the First Amendment to practice and defend that,
then I show you the rest of the First Amendment, Bill of rights and laws in context
that come with that. Whatever laws you are invoking, I learn what they are
and rebuke you where you are violating your own principles you ascribe to.

When this is done properly, the person respects the correction
because it is given in their own terms. Like taking a set of
math variables in a GIVEN problem, and using THOSE
to either demonstrate consistency or inconsistency with ITSELF

B. As for spiritual healing, what if that is someone's way of
getting their equal health care provisions.

So if you are requiring people through ACA to go through
GOVT ENDORSED AND APPROVED ALTERNATIVES
then ACA REQUIRES that *federal govt* endorse these choices
if people are to have them as "equal choices of health care"

Imagine that - the ACA requires you to have insurance that actually does something and cover something. Go figure. I'm sorry - you elected your representatives. They lost. It's the law. Deal until you get your legislators can change the law. This is NOT the forum to do it on.

My scriptures aren't even on the same shelf as my constitution - there's actually a physical separation - it helped my kids when they were younger to understand. You can't impose your religious beliefs on spiritual healing and expect that a collective "you" will decide if my religion, belief or bible suits your needs, or if I have to change it. The only law I'm invoking is separation of church and state. You are hell bent on combining them with spiritual healing. Enough. Stalemate, move on.

Sneekin
Insurance is not the only way to cover health care costs
and clearly other ways are still needed.

So why PENALIZE those other choices and say insurance (or religious health share ministries or federal exchanges)
are the ONLY way to avoid a fine?

You just said you didn't want spiritual healing involved as a choice.
But if you are penalizing it because it's not one of the govt endorsed choices,
you are EXCLUDING that choice. AND imposing insurance as the ONLY WAY???

Aren't you penalizing people for wanting other choices
that are equally valid?

What's wrong with someone
paying all their costs *with or without insurance*
and building a charity hospital and medical program to help others with costs NOT COVERED by govt or insurance!

Why is THAT option FINED BY GOVT AS NOT A CHOICE.

Just because it doesn't involve paying for insurance?

 

[Syriusly]

Dear Sneekin

A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.

I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/

This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
[Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]

Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!

Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.

B. So in general
NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET

I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.

The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.

Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.

At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.

If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,

Thanks!

Emily,
I don't think you grasp how government works. Your representatives are elected, then they represent you. Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's. Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress APPROVED it. You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts. They represented you. PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it. Like it or not, you were represented. Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off). One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are. The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.

If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.

While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us. My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease. It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good. My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35. She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock. She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later. So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars. Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million. Insurance? Would pay for it. You refuse insurance? You expect ME to pay for it? That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.

Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect. That's really funny, since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated. The ACA is LAW. Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have. There are checks and balances. And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick? I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance. Live in a nice house? I'll take it. Nice car? keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car. After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health. And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections. I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids. Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth control, perhaps?

Dear Sneekin
A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
ALL DEMOCRATS.

The Republicans voted NO..

The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat

Emily,

In the next Congress, you can expect to see laws passed by the majority Republicans without a single Democrat voting yes.

That is how our system works- we are a representational Democracy- when the majority of Congress can vote in a law- that becomes the law for all of us.

I am sure I won't like some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress- but I won't be pretending that they didn't do it legally.

Especially with Constitutionalists, Syriusly,
NO they should know better than to pass biased laws
that violate beliefs of others.!

Virtually every law violates the belief of someone.

You may not like our system of government, but ACA was legally put into effect- just as every law for at least the next two years that President Trump signs.

Even if those laws violate my beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Faun RE: conservative concept
1. are you talking about the policy credited to Reagan for opening up all hospitals to treat all people?
a. if you don't agree to the terms of taxpayers paying for that
and want to change them, why change it to something others don't agree with either?
b. why not go after prison budgets, convert those to medical treatment, research and education programs, and pay for medical education and training at the same time as offering public health services to both inmates and the general public for the same costs we are already paying?
c. why change it to insurance if not all people agree to that and insurance doesn't cover the need for training service providers, building facilities, researching or treating the CAUSE of disease

2. if you are talking about insurance mandates being a conservative idea
that was already debunked
a. it did not cover daily and routine health care, only CATASTROPHIC
b. it still respected STATES rights and did not ever get support to pass on a NATIONAL level
So changing it to mean FEDERAL regulation of ALL health care violates
Conservative principles on 2-3 counts: states rights, civil liberties, and religious freedom since govt cannot regulate the healing work that faith based programs do which only works in private as a free choice and can't be mandated

c. that's why I'm saying to separate two tracks or else agree to let spiritual healing be incorporated into public programs.

If you insist on keeping spiritual faith based programs out of govt,
then people cannot be penalized and forced under federal regulations at the same time.

As far as your question... no, I don't like the mandate. But then, it's a conservative concept that has always sounded stupid to me and I'm in favor of a national healthcare system.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sneekin

1. No slavery is NOT allowed to be imposed where it is NOT "treating others equally as oneself"
and is AGAINST the Bible! Where are you getting that slavery is endorsed?

In the OT? Like in the OLD laws of Constitutional history where slavery was endorsed by govt?

In both Christianity and govt, it is only allowed where people FREELY CHOOSE to volunteer their labor
or AGREE that as punishment and restitution for crime, they owe labor or payment for damages or restoration.

You can have
* VOLUNTARY servitude such as charity people choose
* or PENALTY by law for a crime under CIVIL Authority.

These are consistent with both Bible and Constitutional laws.
The Bible also calls to respect CIVIL authority, so again involuntary
servitude is barred, and only legal where laws prescribe a penalty for a convicted crime.

2. NOTE if you mean slavery today:
yes we do rely on unsafe slave labor and sweatshops to afford goods made that way today.
our secular laws allow us to import and purchase goods made by slave labor at nonliving wages.

Are you saying Christianity condones this slavery?

We FORGIVE that it happens, so that FORGIVENESS is taught by Christianity,
but if we live by caring for our neighbors
equally as ourselves, and we would not want to live and work as slaves for 50 cents a day,
it makes sense why so many Christian groups are trying to end slavery and trafficking
to free people from unequal conditions, forced servitude and abuses.

Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions. So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion. Your definition is NT law. I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery. Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine). Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian. You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible. There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and (translations) a) kissed; b) chastely kissed on the cheek; c) shook hands. Some translations recognize several same sex relationships. Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie. Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century. That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.

Not at all Sneekin

by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
see Matthew 18:15-20

I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!

to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.

If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
I am called to leave you alone.

But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
either agreement or neutral stalemate.

It is a mutual process of exchange,
not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.

Emily - again you bring religion into it. Enough. Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion. You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate. Enough discussion.

1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.

2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
laws too which come from God.

My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.

This works by fr e e choice, never by force.

So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!

No - freedom from ALL religions. Your religious beliefs are not my constitutional rights and won't be. My religious beliefs are not to be factored into the law as well (and not).

That may be Mustafaa's belief (followers of the book), but it's not all - and it doesn't cover all religions. It doesn't cover the NT - which didn't exist to all 3 parties. The book is the OT. Followers of Abraham would be another name for them, as they are descended from a single religion (Judaism). So, we are back to Jews who recognize slavery, etc, etc. No shellfish, no pork, no mixing meat and dairy - the list goes on. Except, then Christians can't have their Lobster, Muslims can't have their meat be Halal, etc.This too would violate law. Of course, much of this violates tenets of other faiths. I've been on threads where people have stated that Catholics are cannibals - because they believe in transubstantiation - that bread and wine is converted to the actual body and blood of Christ. by eating/drinking actual blood and flesh, one would be a cannibal. Only a few religions believe in that concept any more (Christian), and non-Christians don't believe it at all. This is why we don't have what you ask for.

OK Sneekin freedom from all religions
including political religions like yours and mine.
You believe in majority rule used to outvote people of one belief by another.
I do not, but believe in consent when it comes to beliefs.
By your statement, neither of us can impose our beliefs through govt.
AGREED! That's what I'm saying, it should be by CONSENT of people.
And by the very nature of CONSENT, I can't impose either.
I ask people what they consent or don't consent to, and form a consensus on that
based on free choice. If we agree to majority rule that has to be by consent also!

 

[Sneekin]

Makes no sense..

Now...in 50 words or less....PLEASE

How do you pass laws that are both pro-life and pro-choice?

Here's an example rightwinger

A. What if we agree not to ban abortion but
create a special level of law on state levels for Health and Safety
which communities may choose to OPT INTO freely such as
by school district, civic association for neighborhood communities, or whole cities
if all residents happen to agree on terms.

Then people might agree that Relationship Abuse counts as a health code threat or violation
(and also Drug abuse or addiction without Criminalizing it or penalizing it)
and needs to be addressed by mandatory counseling by BOTH partners if a complaint is reported of abuse.

So it could be agreed upon that an act
resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child, unwanted abortion,
etc. counts as Relationship Abuse and is subject to counseling to correct the problem.

so this can be applied to "ban sex that leads to unwanted abortion"
as a form of abuse, if people agreed to terms and definitions and process.

It is not antichoice but saying in cases where abortion is not a wanted choice,
both partners should be protected from that situation where something is being forced.

We are not banning the abortion in ways that affect the woman more than the man,
but banning acts of coercion or abuse that otherwise would result in abortion,a
and holding BOTH partners responsible for not abusing the relationship or sex,
where it causes mental emotional or physical coercion or stress on one or both partners.

B. if that doesn't work I also suggest separating funding
by taxes where prolife people can match dollars going to Planned Parenthood
with the same amount going to the Nurturing Network which isn't affiliated with
anything to do with abortion.

If the left wants right to health care through govt,
why not separate two tracks and let the right have right to life through govt.
Let both tracks fund the programs they believe in,
and let taxpayers CHOOSE which track to fund.
Anyone can participate in nonprofits or govt programs of both tracks,
but just separate the taxes where people are fully and equally represented.

That is both prochoice and prolife!

300 words and you still didn't answer a simple question. Let me rephrase...

The problem with abortion is there can be no consensus. There is no middle ground. Dividing up communities into smaller and smaller segments will still not reach the consensus you desire. If you can't get consensus on abortion in families how can you get it by town?

Those who want to ban abortion want it banned for EVERYONE
How do you reconcile that?

Dear rightwinger
1. if there cannot be a consensus then both sides should agree to separate,
and where that isn't fully possible, they should agree to mutual concessions where BOTH sides agree that is the best that can be done.
that would be fair to both.

2. What I tell my prolife friends is they themselves are PROOF
that abortion can be prevented and ended WITHOUT BANNING IT.
Because THEY don't require it to be banned by law for THEM to
do what they do, which is purely through offering better CHOICES
and education to PREVENT abortion. That's enough to wipe it out.
One prolife advocate I spoke with doesn't think this is possible but
believe in promoting better birth control as the solution. Great!
So let's work together on that instead of working against each other.
If we use all resources to focus on where we AGREE will prevent abortion,
that's better than wasting resources fighting where we disagree.

So of all the prolife people I've talked with, the real reason they don't
think the laws are enough is that the prochoice people keep rejecting
their efforts to stop abortion, so they think these people are pro ABORTION instead of prochoice.
If prochoice people work WITH prolife to prevent abortion as much as possible,
they wouldn't feel the need to ban it to stop it.

3. for the hardcore people who don't want govt legalizing it in any form,
that's where I recommend to separate those taxpayers funding and let
them pay under a health care track that is prolife with no abortion.
And same with people who are against death penalty and costs of war,
and want health care, let them separate tracks and pay for life not death!

So separation is possible where people have strong beliefs as conscientious objectors.
I don't think that will divide people any more than we already are along political or religious beliefs,
but will have the opposite effect and allow people to unite, when they can all have their
own way and don't have to compete to force everyone to pay for policies they don't believe in.

Emily,

I'm hoping this helps all of the religious nuts and those people thinking they have a right to consensus on every governmental issue.

Watch this video . The lyrics are here: Schoolhouse Rock:I'm Just A Bill

This is a "cute" way of putting it down into very simple terms, how involved the process is. In a democracy you may get a vote, but as you see, we are not one, otherwise, Hillary Clinton would be president - she won the popular vote, Trump appears to have the Electoral College votes - but they haven't voted yet).

We are a Republic - US definition: Rule by elected individuals representing the citizen body and exercising power according to the rule of law.

Post Script: DOMA wasn't changed. Parts have been struck down as illegal/invalid. Nothing, however, changed - it was INVALIDATED.

Dear Sneekin
Sorry but democratic voting does NOT apply to religious beliefs.
Govt is NOT supposed to establish faith-based biases or systems
REGARDLESS how the voting goes! It's still unconstitutional.

Now, where you and I disagree:
You don't consider political beliefs to be governed under the First Amendment
as I do.

so that IN ITSELF is a difference in BELIEFS!

You have NO RIGHT to abuse govt and laws to impose YOUR interpretation
that political and secular beliefs don't count
AND
I DO NOT have that right EITHER to impose MY beliefs that they do!

Thus the First Amendment still applies:
Govt can neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise
of YOUR beliefs or MINE
REGARDLESS OF DEMOCRATIC VOTE.

That's why I believe in consensus,
to protect both your beliefs and mine from imposition by the other.

so NO SORRY Mr. Law Professor
You do NOT have the right to subject anyone's BELIEFS up to VOTE by GOVT OR THROUGH GOVT
*UNLESS PEOPLE CONSENT TO HAVE THEIR BELIEFS VOTED ON THIS WAY*

I DO NOT CONSENT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION TO DO SO.

If you want to debate this publicly,
let's do it.

Ask your students and your school to set up a national conference
on whether the ACA incorporates or imposes a bias in political beliefs
and if it is discriminatory to force compliance on citizens of other beliefs under penalty of law.

I'd LOVE to see that debated between all the law schools across the country.

Emily,

I'm confused. You are the one that continues to try and introduce faith based health care, prayer in schools, and other items that all amount to you trying to establish a state religion. What is more egregious is that at first you said any faith based healing, then down to New Testament teachings that recognize Christ, and claimed the religions you referenced were Judaism, Islam and Christianity. That completely ignores the 1000 + other religions - how dare you! You not only want to allow wanton child abuse (beating the demons from children), snake handling (poisonous snakes), praying over people, laying of hands, speaking in tongues, and more. These all violate MANY Christian religions, not to mention, that only a few Jews believe that there was a prophet named Jesus, ditto Islam. Leaves out Buddhists, for example, who don't believe in a Godhead figure. That's not what a Buddha is.

If I believe in the constitution, which covers ALL law, then of course I believe the first amendment covers civil law. You don't get to make up your own religion; there are guidelines for a religion - not much, but just because you may think Heroin is the body of Christ, or the Holy Grail, doesn't mean you get to sell, distribute or shoot up Heroin, which, based on your words about "beliefs".

From the top -
1. You have been pushing for days for faith based health care - I sure as hell haven't. Your first sentence and first lie. You regurgitated my words back at me: "Govt is NOT supposed to establish faith-based biases or systems REGARDLESS how the voting goes! It's still unconstitutional." I told YOU that. Unless you are under some delusion that the ACA is FAITH BASED, which it is not - the law would not have left chambers and been voted on by the House, Senate, signed by the President, and past Judicial Review by the SCOTUS. You win the Pants On Fire award for you claim.

2. You made the egregious lie: "You don't consider political beliefs to be governed under the First Amendment as I do. so that IN ITSELF is a difference in BELIEFS!" I never said that. Pants on Fire Award again for you.

3. Another lie: "You have NO RIGHT to abuse govt and laws to impose YOUR interpretation that political and secular beliefs don't count
AND I DO NOT have that right EITHER to impose MY beliefs that they do!" I wasn't imposing my OPINION on you - I was telling you what the laws and the constitution CLEARLY state. You choose to disbelieve - doesn't mean I'm trying to impose squat on you. Your ignorance of fact doesn't make me guilty of anything. The only person trying to impose anything was YOU, when you claimed you want faith based healing as an option under a federal health care program (again, I told YOU it violates the first amendment, and you twisted that into para 1 and 2.

4. Then you said: "Thus the First Amendment still applies: Govt can neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise of YOUR beliefs or MINE
REGARDLESS OF DEMOCRATIC VOTE." - which is almost a direct quote of what I TOLD YOU again! This is your 4th PANTS ON FIRE AWARD.

You don't seem to understand. What you want to do violates the 1st amendment - your BS FAITH BASED HEALING ADDITION TO THE ACA would GET LAUGHED OUT OF CONGRESS.

5. the most egregious and funny comment you made was:

"You do NOT have the right to subject anyone's BELIEFS up to VOTE by GOVT OR THROUGH GOVT *UNLESS PEOPLE CONSENT TO HAVE THEIR BELIEFS VOTED ON THIS WAY*

I DO NOT CONSENT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION TO DO SO."

Actually lawmakers can subject your beliefs/my beliefs etc up for vote by the Congress (note, not "GOVT", use correct terms"). For example: Affordable Health Care. Congress has every right to discuss this in committee, move it to the floor, pass/not pass, and if it passes, the president can either pass or veto. If there is a veto, the congress can override the veto with enough votes. If ANYONE has an issue with a law, they can pursue it through the US LEGAL SYSTEM. Not call me names, not make up your own facts, not twist my words, nor substitute your words for mine.

Contrary to what you think, with the example given, I would not be the only person wanting a government health care program to cover the uninsured. Congress NEVER needs your consent - we aren't a monarchy, and you aren't the queen of the country. At this point, Emily, back away from the keyboard. You are deluding yourself if you believe Congress needs to come to a consensus with your ideas (your words, not mine), and another point being Congress doesn't need your consent to submit a bill, just because you have the same idea for a bill. In regards to your faith-based healthcare, NO Congressman would expect to have a bill calling for that to pass and become a law, any first year without being challenged and overturned. Your proposal is faith based (faith based healing). The ACA, according to the US Legal system is not.

No need to have a discussion, if you'd bother researching a bit.

Your arguments regarding the constitutionality of being forced to purchase (mandated) health care insurance was decided by the SCOTUS on June 28, 2012. Although the Supreme Court declared that the law could not have been upheld under an argument based on the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, the Court declared that the legislatively-declared "penalty" was constitutional as a valid exercise of the Congressional power to tax, thus upholding the individual mandate.

This completely shoots your statement of "Ask your students and your school to set up a national conference on whether the ACA incorporates or imposes a bias in political beliefs and if it is discriminatory to force compliance on citizens of other beliefs under penalty of law." - all to hell. Why would anyone want to discuss a program that's been ruled on by the SCOTUS, and on the chopping block by the upcoming Republican party?

There is your answer, from the SCOTUS. Feel free to research and get their email addresses, and question them. I am through discussing and arguing this, especially as it has ZIP to do with who can get married and is totally off topic.

Absorb this. Don't bother to reply to this. If you want to discuss marriage, stay on topic.

 

[Sneekin]

EMILY SAID:
3. And why do you think Cruz is a joke? He is a Constitutionalist.
He agrees that tax laws need to be reformed. Why not propose to separate
social legislation by party so people who would rather fund education and health
care can do so, instead of funding war and the death penalty; while those who
want to fund military and VA reform can invest there instead of on welfare and
health care under rules they don't believe federal govt has authority to regulate!

SNEEKIN SAID:
Why do I think he's a joke? He's a "sorta" Constructionist. Only when it works for him. He's not strict on the second amendment - anyone can do anything, no limits, but says the 14th only applies to one specific group, because it's currently used to protect gay people, who he's on record for hating. His religion is questionable at best - he's a strict follower of his father, who proclaims that Ted is one of the pillars of God, and he should be extreme ruler and bowed down to. He doesn't think all tax laws need to be reformed - only those that help business - not the common man and not the poor. He's an advocate of gerrymandering and voter suppression - public record, as usual.

Separation of social legislation by party is patently ILLEGAL. I guess if I choose not to register (which I have yet to do in all my years of voting), then I will have to pay no taxes, I can get every form of public aid anyway - since the social legislation wouldn't be covered.....not to mention, you are claiming you are going to be refusing to treat children or feed them because of their parent's political affiliation. No can do, Emily. Riddle me this, Batgirl. Let's say social security is Democrat, and not Republican. You are a Democrat and your Husband is Republican. That means your kids would not be entitled to your husband's survivor benefits, nor would you. But if you passed, your children would receive yours, as would your husband. Based on what I've seen over the last 30 years, glass ceiling and all, with women making much less than men, it's quite apparent that there would be disparity based on Sex and Political Affiliation, which once again, flies in the face of the constitution.

The concept behind public education is equal access by all students to the same basic standards. You wish to define access by political affiliation? Again - not registered - so you are now denying my child a right to an education? ILLEGAL!!!!

54 percent of ALL OUR DOLLARS go to DEFENSE. 5.6 percent goes to VA Benefits. That's almost 60 percent. The remaining 41 percent is split between Transportation (you know, your roads, train/plane/etc subsidies), Medicare, Housing, Energy, Science, Education, International affairs, etc. You seem to think you can split this out politically, but you can't. half of these would impact Military/VA reform AND welfare/healthcare. There is a National Cemetery in my town. It's on a military base. So when I take my father to his best friend's grave, I drive on Transportation funded roadways, check in with military officials, take him for a background check, which taps into NON-MILITARY databases (the 40 percent, not 60 percent), and take him to the grave. Who buries people there? Military does. Who maintains? Military. It may be contracted out, but it's payed with military funding. Another example - I want to go and visit my daughter, who lives across the river. Unless I drive 30 miles out of the way, I have to use the bridge owned by the Department of the Army. It was decided over 100 years ago that all persons, military or not can use the bridge. Yet only military pays for maintenance on the bridge. If you use ethanol, any product that has corn as an ingredient, etc, more than likely at some point it was on a barge on the Mississippi River. Barges go through a series of 29 lock and dams, built by, and maintained by the Army Corp of Engineers. Are you claiming you want to vote on what food you can eat now? If you don't want to vote for the military, then you won't get any product on a barge (also, coal etc is transported on these barges, as well as food, limestone, etc). If you have a boat, you can't go any farther north once you hit the state of Missouri - the Army maintains the locks - or you would pay an enormous fee (nowadays, it's a minimal fee, based on taxes paid by businesses. I've seen 30 pleasure boats go through here, and no one pays a fee - but you would if you weren't paying taxes......You'd have to pay more in transportation, as the Military has paid for some of the bridges crossing the MS river. Most bridges are paid for out of state and federal dollars. Some comes from DoD.

Finally, Emily, go and research - YOU HAVE NO VOICE what happens to TAX DOLLARS. It goes into a general fund. Money is budgeted for multi-year - DoD has an 8 year budget cycle (prior year (baseline), current year, current plus one (they have a biennial budget), and five out years.

Please educate everyone here how the following scenario could happen, allowing you to willy-nilly change things, and who to charge.

One command in Department of Army buys ammunition. Let's take a simple 5.56 bullet. That bullet is purchased by the Highway Patrol of many states; all branches of the service; Coast Guard (not DoD if we aren't at war); the VA; Treasury Dept; State Dept; Foreign Military Sales (other countries, who don't pay taxes); and almost every Federal agency that has guards/police, some of which are in the non-Military/Non-VA category. Some local police also purchase. The command budgets for a period of 8 years, based on requirements for those 8 years sent in by previously named organizations. All DoD / VA purchases would come out of the DoD/VA pot - and you are saying on a whim, we can cut half the funding by changing our political affiliation - ie, Billionaires become Democrats. The command doesn't request a bullet be made separately for each requestor, they do the math, and might say they need 4 billion this year. How do you budget the remaining years if you don't have a dependable funding stream?

Let's take something even MORE near and dear. My father and the company he worked for has a patent for equipment that was initially funded as a joint effort of DoD and Science. It's currently being used in EVERY HOSPITAL, many Dr offices, and some homes. The company continues to make improvements. That would now lose half it's funding, as Science is Social as opposed to DoD - Science works on medical, FDA, Weather, etc Research and Development. You in essence are killing people - this equipment is still being updated when there are new advances. The device in the initial stages took up the back end of a station wagon (one of the developers had the health issue, and was the first "tester"). Over the last 50 plus years, it went down to the size of R2D2, then down to the size of a canister vac, then an extremely heavy suitcase, to it's current iteration - carried in one hand, about 10 x 20 x 4-5 inches. Engineers are trying to reduce this to the size of a pack of playing cards (children utilize this as well). With no dependable funding, that dream won't come true any more (probably will take some other scientific advances, HHS involvement, etc, and some money kicked in by the VA and DoD). This no longer will occur. So.......do you understand now?

Our taxes, after paid, go into a single pot - period. The congress, not YOU, decide on how funds are appropriated, and then must be signed into law by the president every year. Breaking this out will also probably double the size of many government offices, who will now be tasked with continual reprogramming of funds from the "on-high" level down to your local agency level, and then distributed down to individual offices. Some DoD commands around here have several hundred offices per command. With funding in flux, you can't count on competency of workers - so be prepared to pay more money for less talent - again leading to an increase of personnel required. I guess while you are talking to Ted Cruz, see if he can get the funding to extend the number of hours in a day and days in a year. To accomplish your pipe dreams, he'd need to work that magic ASAP.

 

[Sneekin]

Emily, the OT allows for slavery, as do several other mainstream religions. So now, you are claiming that I must completely follow your religion, which goes almost completely against my religion. Your definition is NT law. I don't believe in it. And yes, I'm referring to traditional slavery. Many religions prohibit spiritual healing as well (including mine). Why should I have to join your religion, just to have civil rights? We are not a theocracy, and you are now narrowing it down to you must be not only a christian, but a certain type of christian. You do realize that some Christian faiths have more books than your bible, and some that have less than your bible. There are a lot that have completely different translations - as in one case, where two people met, greeted each other and (translations) a) kissed; b) chastely kissed on the cheek; c) shook hands. Some translations recognize several same sex relationships. Other ministers, with NO knowledge of Greek or Aramaic claim it's a lie. Are you aware that the word homosexual didn't appear in the bible until mid century - drum roll - last century. That the Greek word for homosexual did not occur in all of the locations fundamentalist Christians claim, but only twice, and even then, it's believed to be mistranslated. So.....sorry Emily - it's another fail.

Not at all Sneekin

by the Scriptures we do not force one person or the other,
but reach agre ement by resolving grievances or conflicts
in the spirit of Christ Jesus where we both agre e to follow as
universal authority over both of us and all people and relations.
see Matthew 18:15-20

I don't coerce anyone, but seek agreement on what is universal law and truth,
and that sets both people, and the relationship between us, free from conflict!

to be honest, the process is MUTUAL, where you will correct
me as much as I offer the same to you, so we are equal neighbors.

If you are not a believer, and you ask me to depart and not share with you this way,
I am called to leave you alone.

But as long as I use the language and laws you ascribe to,
usually this method works to resolve the conflicts and reach
either agreement or neutral stalemate.

It is a mutual process of exchange,
not forced by one person or the other or it doesn't work.

Emily - again you bring religion into it. Enough. Your scriptures say one thing, mine say something completely different -which is why we are not writing law to conform to your religion. You can't ell a muslim to resolve grievances in the spirit of Christ Jesus - that's offensive. Checkmate. Stalemate. Enough discussion.

1. I AM trying to use YOUR terms beliefs or "religion" if that's what you call yours Sneekin
that's the only way I can communicate with you is by YOUR beliefs.
most people I know believe in invoking their Constitutional rights,
so I often use that as the default language to get on the same terms.
Once we agree what we call the things we do or don't believe in,
we can work out the rest with that system of terms we use in common.

2. and YES Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as sent by God.
The true Muslim faith calls for Jews Christians and Muslims all to live with
love and respect for other people of the Book as they are under these
laws too which come from God.

My friend Mustafaa of CAIR reads the Bible daily and relies on it
to communicate with Christians who have questions or rebukes for him,
where he asks the same of them. For those who actually follow their
own Bible, this works well. He works alongside other Christians and nontheists
in the peace and justice community. So if you get the spirit of the laws aligned
in agreement, anyone can get along whether religious or nontheist.

This works by fr e e choice, never by force.

So that's why I try to figure out what people's beliefs are naturally,
how they express it, and use THEIR laws and experiences to communicate
the same concepts and principles, which I find to be universal no matter
how uniquely and diversely each person expresses it their own ways!

No - freedom from ALL religions. Your religious beliefs are not my constitutional rights and won't be. My religious beliefs are not to be factored into the law as well (and not).

That may be Mustafaa's belief (followers of the book), but it's not all - and it doesn't cover all religions. It doesn't cover the NT - which didn't exist to all 3 parties. The book is the OT. Followers of Abraham would be another name for them, as they are descended from a single religion (Judaism). So, we are back to Jews who recognize slavery, etc, etc. No shellfish, no pork, no mixing meat and dairy - the list goes on. Except, then Christians can't have their Lobster, Muslims can't have their meat be Halal, etc.This too would violate law. Of course, much of this violates tenets of other faiths. I've been on threads where people have stated that Catholics are cannibals - because they believe in transubstantiation - that bread and wine is converted to the actual body and blood of Christ. by eating/drinking actual blood and flesh, one would be a cannibal. Only a few religions believe in that concept any more (Christian), and non-Christians don't believe it at all. This is why we don't have what you ask for.

OK Sneekin freedom from all religions
including political religions like yours and mine.
You believe in majority rule used to outvote people of one belief by another.
I do not, but believe in consent when it comes to beliefs.
By your statement, neither of us can impose our beliefs through govt.
AGREED! That's what I'm saying, it should be by CONSENT of people.
And by the very nature of CONSENT, I can't impose either.
I ask people what they consent or don't consent to, and form a consensus on that
based on free choice. If we agree to majority rule that has to be by consent also!

Emily

Politics does not fall under religion. The first amendment does not cover your "political religion".

I've told you repeatedly we aren't a democracy, we are a constitutional republic - majority doesn't rule. The rights of the minority must also be taken into account (interracial marriage, gay marriage, etc) are rights - we can't legally say blacks or gays cannot get married. They are both minorities.

I don't believe ANYONE can outvote your belief, and I CHALLENGE YOU to give one case where their constitutional rights have been voted away. Allowing two men to get married does not violate the rights of ANY CHRISTIAN/MUSLIM/ATHEIST/RELIGIOUS/Non-RELIGIOUS person.

Health care isn't a belief, and I've furnished you with the Supreme Court verbiage from their ruling.

We don't NEED your consent to pass ANY BILL. It needs to be (hopefully) legal, pass through committees, Senate and House, signed by the president, and ruled as constitutional by the SCOTUS if challenged. For example, healthcare mandate is not a matter of choice, majority rule, consensus or consent. Did you watch the "I'm a Bill on Capitol Hill" video? It should explain the process.

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Sneekin

A. Representatives represent me when these issues are resolved.
They are not getting represented yet, sorry!
Yes, I will go through govt to resolve them
but I have to be able to EXPLAIN them first.

I posted the letter to Ted Cruz office outlining even 3 of the grievances
that can be documented: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10952408/

This has been going on until I find the PEOPLE to REDRESS those grievances.
[Of the people I've found who respect what it takes to represent me, most of
them are OUTSIDE GOVT. We have to form teams to connect with people
INSIDE govt to create the process that WILL represent these issues for resolution purposes!]

Not everyone can deal with this. And the ones who can are NOT ALL in govt positions!

Thanks for trying but it takes SPECIFIC people.
And then I can form a team with Congresswoman Lee to resolve these issues.
And if we can do it FT, we can use that same model for other issues
that HAVEN'T BEEN RESOLVED using the given legal or govt system as is.

B. So in general
NO the system of redressing grievances by assessing restitution owed
and crediting the taxmoney back to taxpayers
HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET

I am teaming up with Jon Roland of the Libertarians and Constitution Society in Austin
and Ted Weisgal with the Diversity outreach of KPFT public radio
to try to organize some kind of party representation that can redress grievances.

The PROCESS that WOULD represent me in protecting the right
to petition to redress grievances by consensus and noncoercion
as the standard HASN'T BEEN proposed, offered or applied yet.

Thank you for helping to sort out the preliminary prep part.

At some point I will reach out to all law schools especially
anyone teaching Constitutional laws and ethics, to join the effort.

If it is really based on Consensus and Inclusion then everyone
will be able to use it to resolve their issues locally or nationally,

Thanks!

Emily,
I don't think you grasp how government works. Your representatives are elected, then they represent you. Even using your example - we need some way for people like you, who opt out of health insurance, to quit bankrupting the rest of us - we used a republican plan, the ACA, written by the Heritage think tank in the mid 90's. Romney implemented it, Obama implemented it, after a majority of Congress APPROVED it. You can't explain it, because I think you don't grasp the facts. They represented you. PP/ACA was implemented it, even though you don't like it. Like it or not, you were represented. Your next step is to contact your representatives, and see what can be done to shift the burden of paying for the lazy people (people who work who don't care that they rip the rest of us off). One will assume under the Trump regime, it will be overturned, and the rest of us will push to make sure if you don't pay for insurance because you just don't want to, can now be denied no matter what your health issues are. The majority of health care dollars are going against deadbeats who work and refuse to pay for coverage, and those that sign up for insurance weeks before a major surgery.

If you are banking on Cruz, that will be even a bigger joke.

While I can agree with you in part in concept only, the fact is, cheap people like you ruin it for the rest of us. My birth mother died in her mid 30's from a lung disease. It was in the early days of health insurance, but my father made sure insurance was paid before groceries were bought - which was good. My mother had congestive heart failure, treatment for TB, a double masectomy, all before the age of 35. She was being treated for TB, treated in a trial with a drug that was hailed as a cure - unfortunately, she was allergic to the (now commonplace) and went into Anaphylactic shock. She ended up on oxygen, filling up with fluid, and died days later. So......even then, costs were thousands of dollars. Nowadays, costs would be probably half a million. Insurance? Would pay for it. You refuse insurance? You expect ME to pay for it? That's NOT a viable solution, Emily.

Good luck grieving a law that's in full force and effect. That's really funny, since we grieve and arbitrate perceptions / conclusions that laws have been violated. The ACA is LAW. Good luck. We, the people don't get to grieve every dreamed up misconception we have. There are checks and balances. And if the ACA is overturned - do I get to now grieve and file suit against you or anyone else that now refuses to pay for insurance and then gets sick? I'll be first in line if that was doable. After all, you said I should get to grieve and get redress - so maybe I should file now against you people that refuse to purchase insurance. Live in a nice house? I'll take it. Nice car? keep up the payments, I'll just drive off in your car. After all, an xbox, car, house, video game is more important to you people than actual good health. And if you have children, I would even claim child abuse, playing games while your child goes from a simple sneeze to hospitalization and respiratory infections. I guess people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are able to care for their kids. Not having insurance when you can afford it should be grounds for no marriage and no children - mandatory birth control, perhaps?

Dear Sneekin
A. The reps in Congress (legislative)
and the President (executive) who voted yes and passed it were
ALL DEMOCRATS.

The Republicans voted NO..

The Texs Democratic Party platform openly sat

Emily,

In the next Congress, you can expect to see laws passed by the majority Republicans without a single Democrat voting yes.

That is how our system works- we are a representational Democracy- when the majority of Congress can vote in a law- that becomes the law for all of us.

I am sure I won't like some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress- but I won't be pretending that they didn't do it legally.

Especially with Constitutionalists, Syriusly,
NO they should know better than to pass biased laws
that violate beliefs of others.

Free market health care is fine for those who believe in that and agree to support it.
For those who believe in going through govt for singlepayer health care,
that is an equal political belief people have equal right to exercise if they fund it themselves as well!

So why not set up both tracks and let taxpayers vote, pay and organize under
the programs as they believe in setting up their ways. Health care is supposed to
remain a private choice, so let people choose!

Name a law that's been ruled biased in your lifetime. Not your opinion, but factually ruled upon. Healthcare mandating has been ruled on and ruled as NOT BIASED!!!!

 

[Sneekin]

Emily Said:

Sneekin
Insurance is not the only way to cover health care costs
and clearly other ways are still needed.

So why PENALIZE those other choices and say insurance (or religious health share ministries or federal exchanges)
are the ONLY way to avoid a fine?

You just said you didn't want spiritual healing involved as a choice.
But if you are penalizing it because it's not one of the govt endorsed choices,
you are EXCLUDING that choice. AND imposing insurance as the ONLY WAY???

Aren't you penalizing people for wanting other choices
that are equally valid?

What's wrong with someone
paying all their costs *with or without insurance*
and building a charity hospital and medical program to help others with costs NOT COVERED by govt or insurance!

Why is THAT option FINED BY GOVT AS NOT A CHOICE.

Just because it doesn't involve paying for insurance?
[/QUOTE]

Sneekin Said:
Really? Those other ways are what? If you have no insurance, and you have cancer, heart attack, need major surgery, transplants, etc, explain how you think the average person will pay for these WITHOUT insurance. The average income is between 40 and 48K. A heart transplant will cost more than you will make in a year.

Why say (your second paragraph)? Because that is the law.....BTW, federal exchanges ARE INSURANCE. If you open a book, and compare the definition of religious health share ministries and exchanges and health insurance, they are the same thing, conceptually.

OMG - Spiritual healing IS ILLEGAL under the federal exchanges, as well as conventional health insurance. You can have spiritual healing under RHSM, but RHSM also has to meet all the ACA criteria - why can't you understand that? You can have ADDITIONAL choices - but you fail to grasp that there are guidelines that must be followed - THEY ARE LAW.

Nothing is wrong with paying all of your costs - provided you can demonstrate you can come up with the money. Most people cannot. Can you afford to pay for a cancer surgery, with chemotherapy, along with two knee replacements, and similar for your husband? Why the hell do you think people have insurance to begin with? Because MOST PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY ALL OF THEIR MEDICAL BILLS.

Why must you ask (we are up to probably 15 times now) why establishment of a state religion isn't a choice/ok/legal? It's the FIRST AMENDMENT that makes it illegal for INSURANCE/FEDERAL EXCHANGE. Off topic. Last time I answer you on this subject.