emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
RandallFlagg brought up on a different thread:
"I believe that they have tried to impose "regulations" time and time again. See: Texas Vs SCOTUS. We live in strange times. We celebrate a Mother killing her unborn baby (and yes, they ARE babies) while we allow illegal aliens to come into our country, kill our citizens and waltz back to Mexico. The rule of law in this country is a sham.
And, are you ready for this? BOTH parties are responsible for not having the guts to stand for what is right. They just keep sticking their heads into the sand, and come out every now and again when it's time to run for re-election - and we keep sending their worthless asses back."
My question is: Do we need a more direct grievance process to check against abuses?
Currently
* media
* political parties
* corporations
Are not checked directly by Constitutional limits as on govt.
At what point does 'corporate collusion' constitute "Conspiracy to violate equal civil rights"
If parties lobby through media, legislature and courts to pass an UNconstitutional set of mandates such as ACA that Penalized taxpayers, despite objections and NO votes that were overruled; does this constitute a violation of dissenters right to "no taxation without representation" and discrimination against creed for people who don't believe in funding govt health care but BELIEVE in free market choices?
My proposals are
A. to hold corporations responsible for respecting the same standards as required of govt on due process, right to petition to redress grievances, and not depriving individuals of liberty and equal protections of the law in order to qualify for licensing/registration to operate as issued by states. False charges and claims would also be policed by the same grievance process, where complainants agree in advance not to abuse the process to obstruct justice or else face the same requirements of correcting problems they cause.
in other words, both parties to the complaints have to agree to follow the same standards of due process, and consensus on corrections and restitution, in order to protect the grievance process from abuse.
Note: For conflicts in beliefs, such as the contested LGBT/marriage/transgender issues,
both the company and the customers potentially affected would be required to sign mediation or arbitration agreements in advance, in order to avoid legal actions or costs, or else refrain from conducting business together. So neither side is penalized for conflicts in beliefs that remain their private choice equally protected by law.
B. to hold constitutional review conferences to pinpoint political beliefs that are contested between political parties, and formulate legislation to separate funding choices where taxpayers have options what policies to fund or not to fund to avoid imposing or excluding their beliefs.
examples
* health care, drug legalization and abortion choices
* death penalty or funding rehab/restitution programs in restorative justice
* benefits for traditional or same sex marriage
* war funding or VA reforms for vets
* amnesty or restitution for immigration or trafficking violations
C. proposal to divide the two offices of Pres and VP into 4, for external functions and internal functions,
for the purpose of reorganizing and delegating the various roles where full attention can be directed to each
-- foreign policy and global economics and environmental policies that extend beyond the US borders
vs. national policies that only affect the US and geographical borders/security
-- domestic issues that are contested as belonging to federal govt or to states and people
where the external VP would handle federal policies all the public agrees belongs on that level
and the internal VP would manage the shift of social programs back to states, people or parties
that are better managed locally and not decided federally though funding may still be agreed on nationally
This would allow two of the officers (such as internal/external VP or internal Pres/VP) to come from the second place party ticket and NOT necessarily succeed to the presidency but can work independently to reorganize the govt between what is agreed upon as federal and what is better managed locally by states or by party/people more directly (where the Pres/VP of the winning ticket still come from the same party).
For the grievance process in A, the ideas I have so far
* using the Grand Jury process to bring charges of abuse/corruption and demand corrections by the
responsible parties
* modeling a user friendly list of codes after the OSHA system of health and safety and the grievance
process of issuing citations and setting up hearings on corrections to prevent legal action and penalties
* assembling law teams from various laws schools to create internships/jobs for lawyers in
assessing debts and damages to taxpayers, negotiating a settlement or correction plan that the wrongdoers pay for not the taxpayers including legal costs and interest paid by the wrongdoers,
and banking against these assessed damaged through a credit system through the federal reserve. so taxpayers are reimbursed, either by issuing credits or notes against the debts, and using that capital to Finance the reforms, corrections, and sustainable replacements of the contested policies or programs found to be unconstitutional, or abuse/waste of taxpayer money for which we are owed restitution.
if loans are made, then either the wrongdoers are responsible for all costs, and/or investors can buy out the loans and hold the programs or property as collateral so the loans are secured.
all crimes and corruption can be charged back to the wrongdoers instead of charging costs to taxpayers.
if people cannot pay then the debts can be bought out, such as by charities or schools that offer to sponsor the person while paying the debt for them. So if people do not have sponsors and/or cannot afford the cost of their crimes, they cannot afford to commit them. And this is signed in advance in agreements for citizenship when people become legal or naturalized citizens, everyone agrees to sign agreements to pay for the cost of premeditated crimes or violations they are convicted of, and agree to comply with due process and authorities to assess and resolve disputes and violations, if they want citizenship or the rights to operate as a corporation. So there is equal responsibility for enforcing laws.
Your comments or suggestions/referrals on any of the above:
RandallFlagg P@triot defcon4 @Rottweiler PoliticalChic
SuperDemocrat JakeStarkey flacaltenn Flanders
Here are previous websites I wrote up about some of this:
ethics-commission.net (for basic policies I would require for public education and legal requirements on citizenship and corporate licensing/operations)
Earned Amnesty
Isonomy in order to protect equal political power I would organize this "by party" so there is democratic respresentation and structure, and not unfair competition or bullying between groups all held responsible for their own beliefs of their own members.
"I believe that they have tried to impose "regulations" time and time again. See: Texas Vs SCOTUS. We live in strange times. We celebrate a Mother killing her unborn baby (and yes, they ARE babies) while we allow illegal aliens to come into our country, kill our citizens and waltz back to Mexico. The rule of law in this country is a sham.
And, are you ready for this? BOTH parties are responsible for not having the guts to stand for what is right. They just keep sticking their heads into the sand, and come out every now and again when it's time to run for re-election - and we keep sending their worthless asses back."
My question is: Do we need a more direct grievance process to check against abuses?
Currently
* media
* political parties
* corporations
Are not checked directly by Constitutional limits as on govt.
At what point does 'corporate collusion' constitute "Conspiracy to violate equal civil rights"
If parties lobby through media, legislature and courts to pass an UNconstitutional set of mandates such as ACA that Penalized taxpayers, despite objections and NO votes that were overruled; does this constitute a violation of dissenters right to "no taxation without representation" and discrimination against creed for people who don't believe in funding govt health care but BELIEVE in free market choices?
My proposals are
A. to hold corporations responsible for respecting the same standards as required of govt on due process, right to petition to redress grievances, and not depriving individuals of liberty and equal protections of the law in order to qualify for licensing/registration to operate as issued by states. False charges and claims would also be policed by the same grievance process, where complainants agree in advance not to abuse the process to obstruct justice or else face the same requirements of correcting problems they cause.
in other words, both parties to the complaints have to agree to follow the same standards of due process, and consensus on corrections and restitution, in order to protect the grievance process from abuse.
Note: For conflicts in beliefs, such as the contested LGBT/marriage/transgender issues,
both the company and the customers potentially affected would be required to sign mediation or arbitration agreements in advance, in order to avoid legal actions or costs, or else refrain from conducting business together. So neither side is penalized for conflicts in beliefs that remain their private choice equally protected by law.
B. to hold constitutional review conferences to pinpoint political beliefs that are contested between political parties, and formulate legislation to separate funding choices where taxpayers have options what policies to fund or not to fund to avoid imposing or excluding their beliefs.
examples
* health care, drug legalization and abortion choices
* death penalty or funding rehab/restitution programs in restorative justice
* benefits for traditional or same sex marriage
* war funding or VA reforms for vets
* amnesty or restitution for immigration or trafficking violations
C. proposal to divide the two offices of Pres and VP into 4, for external functions and internal functions,
for the purpose of reorganizing and delegating the various roles where full attention can be directed to each
-- foreign policy and global economics and environmental policies that extend beyond the US borders
vs. national policies that only affect the US and geographical borders/security
-- domestic issues that are contested as belonging to federal govt or to states and people
where the external VP would handle federal policies all the public agrees belongs on that level
and the internal VP would manage the shift of social programs back to states, people or parties
that are better managed locally and not decided federally though funding may still be agreed on nationally
This would allow two of the officers (such as internal/external VP or internal Pres/VP) to come from the second place party ticket and NOT necessarily succeed to the presidency but can work independently to reorganize the govt between what is agreed upon as federal and what is better managed locally by states or by party/people more directly (where the Pres/VP of the winning ticket still come from the same party).
For the grievance process in A, the ideas I have so far
* using the Grand Jury process to bring charges of abuse/corruption and demand corrections by the
responsible parties
* modeling a user friendly list of codes after the OSHA system of health and safety and the grievance
process of issuing citations and setting up hearings on corrections to prevent legal action and penalties
* assembling law teams from various laws schools to create internships/jobs for lawyers in
assessing debts and damages to taxpayers, negotiating a settlement or correction plan that the wrongdoers pay for not the taxpayers including legal costs and interest paid by the wrongdoers,
and banking against these assessed damaged through a credit system through the federal reserve. so taxpayers are reimbursed, either by issuing credits or notes against the debts, and using that capital to Finance the reforms, corrections, and sustainable replacements of the contested policies or programs found to be unconstitutional, or abuse/waste of taxpayer money for which we are owed restitution.
if loans are made, then either the wrongdoers are responsible for all costs, and/or investors can buy out the loans and hold the programs or property as collateral so the loans are secured.
all crimes and corruption can be charged back to the wrongdoers instead of charging costs to taxpayers.
if people cannot pay then the debts can be bought out, such as by charities or schools that offer to sponsor the person while paying the debt for them. So if people do not have sponsors and/or cannot afford the cost of their crimes, they cannot afford to commit them. And this is signed in advance in agreements for citizenship when people become legal or naturalized citizens, everyone agrees to sign agreements to pay for the cost of premeditated crimes or violations they are convicted of, and agree to comply with due process and authorities to assess and resolve disputes and violations, if they want citizenship or the rights to operate as a corporation. So there is equal responsibility for enforcing laws.
Your comments or suggestions/referrals on any of the above:
RandallFlagg P@triot defcon4 @Rottweiler PoliticalChic
SuperDemocrat JakeStarkey flacaltenn Flanders
Here are previous websites I wrote up about some of this:
ethics-commission.net (for basic policies I would require for public education and legal requirements on citizenship and corporate licensing/operations)
Earned Amnesty
Isonomy in order to protect equal political power I would organize this "by party" so there is democratic respresentation and structure, and not unfair competition or bullying between groups all held responsible for their own beliefs of their own members.
Last edited:
