Letter to Constitutional Lawyer: Asking to organize Constitutional conference on Political Beliefs

[emilynghiem]

Dear [Constitutional Lawyer in Houston]:
You were referred to me by an advocate with the Texas Constitution Party.
I have been asking Christians and Constitutionalists who oppose ACA mandates
for help to organize either a petition, lawsuit or Constitutional conference.
I want to address what I and many others consider to be an unconstitutional overreach of federal govt
to pass and enforce ACA as law, including a tax penalty for not buying private insurance,
without first voting on any kind of AMENDMENT to the US Constitution authorizing federal govt in this area
of health care decisions and financial management reaching into the private sector.

I would like to organize a team of Constitutional lawyers willing to moderate
input from activists from BOTH the Democratic left AND the Republican right
who oppose this ACA bill and mandates forcing citizens to pay corporate insurance
clearly benefiting at the expense of taxpayers who have no representation.

As long as the two sides don't agree what to change the ACA mandates to,
it appears candidates are deadlocked and the policy remains as is, so taxpayers continue to
be penalized and deprived of liberty without due process of law.

I am arguing that the regulations and penalties
"discriminate on the basis of creed" in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
if not the Tenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.

The belief in "right to health care" is not treated equally as a political belief
as the belief in "right to life" so I believe the Right to Life advocates have grounds to sue the
Democratic Party leaders who pushed this "right to health care" belief through federal laws
but have discriminated in blocking "right to life" beliefs arguing for "separation of church and state."

It is a discriminatory practice NOT to apply the "separation of church and state"
EQUALLY to the "right to health care" beliefs, while penalizing the "free market beliefs"
as not equally protected either.

The federal exemptions under ACA that specify which religious affiliations count as exemptions
are essentially "regulating on the basis of religion or creed"; while those who believe in
"the right to health care through govt" are not as affected as those who believe in free market
health care, where forced compliance with the mandates violates Constitutional beliefs held by half the nation.

I would like to ask you and other Constitutional lawyers and law firms to
consult on organizing a conference on "political beliefs"
to see if the people on all side concerned about ACA -- and threats of discrimination
against prochoice and prolife beliefs, beliefs in free market and right to health care, etc. --
can agree to respect each other's political beliefs, and either ask, demand, petition or SUE both parties to respect beliefs EQUALLY and agree to QUIT imposing biased
laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by establishing one belief while excluding or penalizing another.

On the issues of political beliefs, I argue these should be treated equally as religious beliefs,
or it is a form of discrimination by creed. If only people with secular beliefs get to use govt
to establish theirs, but people with religious beliefs are barred, that is discrimination by creed.

I hold that because political beliefs cannot be separated from govt as religious beliefs are required,
then CONSENSUS is necessary on laws or decisions that touch on political beliefs
to prevent such discrimination and to ensure that all people are protected equally, regardless.

Thus, I find it unconstitutional for govt to pass laws, much less enforce them,
where one side's political beliefs are established publicly and required for all citizens to comply with,
while people of dissenting beliefs are excluded, penalized or otherwise discriminated against by govt.

I believe this unconstitutional infringement has already occurred,
and should be corrected as soon as possible to cap any further damages already imposed.

I believe in equal respect, justice and protection under law for all people, regardless of creed or belief.

I am distressed that nobody has successfully stopped or corrected the unconstitutional
problems under the ACA mandates,
and in the meantime my liberties, rights and freedom have been
deprived and denied without any due process of law to prove that
a crime or violation was committed deserving of restricted freedom.

I see no reason to penalize taxpayers who believe in free market approaches
to affordable, sustainable, cost effective and ethical health care provisions
that would be consistent with constitutional ethics, standards, principles and process,
unlike the ACA mandates that I find to be in violation on many levels.

Nobody seems to be challenging this on the grounds of political beliefs.

Given the strong legal community we have in Houston,
could we bring together leaders on both sides of the health care issue
and address how to handle the political beliefs of
* freedom of choice and right to health care
* free market health care and right to life
Where the parties and federal officials can be asked, petitioned or sued
to respect and protect these beliefs equally.

My question is
* is the First Amendment clause on religious freedom and
the language in the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights laws on
equal protection from discrimination by creed
SUFFICIENT language to protect political beliefs from either
-- imposition and establishment by govt similar to religious beliefs
-- denial, exclusion, discrimination and/or penalty
* or do we need to pass ADDITIONAL legislation or
clarifying amendments to address POLITICAL BELIEFS
so that people are protected equally and not
discriminated against if one party's votes outnumber the other party,
and cause legislation or rulings to be passed FAVORING one party's beliefs while excluding the other's beliefs.

I would like to ask the help of other Constitutionalists
to lay out these points and issues, and to ask to organize
a Constitutional conference to decide if Amendments are needed
or just an agreement to RESPECT political beliefs under "religion" and "creed"
where no changes are needed to the current wording of our Constitutional laws.

Do we NEED to specify that consensus is required to establish
laws or rulings through govt that touch on beliefs or creeds?
So that majority rule is never abused to force a biased faith-based
law that violates the equal freedom and protection of others.

The right to marriage and marriage equality issues also brought
up the issue of beliefs (where I believe consensus is necessary
on public laws, or else an agree to remove the conflicting policy
from govt and keep it private practice through religious freedom left unregulated by govt).

If you or other lawyers you recommend might be interested
in calling a Constitutional conference on this issue, I believe
it will be beneficial in resolving conflicts between beliefs on health care
and marriage laws, as well as other areas from gun rights, voting rights,
immigration rights, the death penalty and abortion, all of which involve
deeply held beliefs that people are not willing to compromise by majority rule.

I believe consensus is necessary in such cases where beliefs cannot be changed by govt.

Thank you very much.

I hope I may find leaders in Constitutional law and govt reform
willing to address these issues, and open the door for the rest
of the nation to follow suit.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem, Constitutionalist
Democratic Precinct 30, Freedmen's Town
713-820-5130
ethics-commission.net
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
Isonomy
[email protected]

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, beliefs don't hold some hallowed status that places them above the law.

I've always found your fixation on this issue to be.....bizarre.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yeah, beliefs don't hold some hallowed status that places them above the law.

I've always found your fixation on this issue to be.....bizarre.

Hi Skylar so why doesn't that hold for "belief in health care as a right" and "belief in marriage equality" ?
Why are THESE beliefs "placed above the law"
placed ABOVE "separation of church and state"
mandated AGAINST "freedom of choice"

Why the double standard, then, Skylar

Would you like to enter the Bullring and tell me why
secular political beliefs are treated unequally as religious beliefs,
and why they AREN'T being all held in check equally under Constitutional laws?

Thanks Skylar it's a good point and that is EXACTLY why I am asking
about treating creeds equally and keeping them OUT OF GOVT (except where people agree on policy and no one is discriminated against)

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, beliefs don't hold some hallowed status that places them above the law.

I've always found your fixation on this issue to be.....bizarre.

Hi Skylar so why doesn't that hold for "belief in health care as a right" and "belief in marriage equality" ?

You can believe whatever you want. But that doesn't place your beliefs above the law. Or mandate that the law represent your beliefs.

Would you like to enter the Bullring and tell me why
secular political beliefs are treated unequally as religious beliefs,
and why they AREN'T being all held in check equally under Constitutional laws?

I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for. The right to express a belief? That's free speech. The right to hold a belief? That's legal.

How then are 'secular beliefs' treated unequally with religious beliefs?

 

[emilynghiem]

Yeah, beliefs don't hold some hallowed status that places them above the law.

I've always found your fixation on this issue to be.....bizarre.

Hi Skylar so why doesn't that hold for "belief in health care as a right" and "belief in marriage equality" ?

You can believe whatever you want. But that doesn't place your beliefs above the law. Or mandate that the law represent your beliefs.

Would you like to enter the Bullring and tell me why
secular political beliefs are treated unequally as religious beliefs,
and why they AREN'T being all held in check equally under Constitutional laws?

I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for. The right to express a belief? That's free speech. The right to hold a belief? That's legal.

How then are 'secular beliefs' treated unequally with religious beliefs?

(1) Right, Skylar I am NOT saying to put anyone's beliefs above the law
but to protect ALL beliefs and creeds equally under the law from either
infringement, imposition, or discrimination by govt.

(2)
How then are 'secular beliefs' treated unequally with religious beliefs?

EX 1: when right to life advocates want to pass a law biased by their beliefs,
this gets struck down by "separation of church and state"
even SYMBOLS that aren't imposing or forcing anyone (like a cross or a Bible,
and now Christmas trees and nativity scenes) lead to lawsuits to REMOVE these from public arenas.

However, this standard is NOT held for
* the beliefs in health care as a right, that was equally opposed by those who aren't represented by this belief
but are now held to tax penalties and fines over this issue
* the beliefs in marriage equality for same sex couples
which was pushed through the govt, even though the beliefs in traditional marriage are struck down
as "violating separation of church and state"
BOTH are beliefs and should be treated equally, not favoring one through govt while striking down the other
* beliefs about gender and orientation that are "faith based"
are supported by laws favoring one sides' beliefs instead of
treating both sides equally since this area remains "faith based"

Unless gender is proven genetically, it is faithbased and same with orientation.

Those are key issues that have come up recently.

To treat prochoice and prolife equally as beliefs, the free choice is the default
that allows BOTH groups to "fund their own programs and keep them out of govt"

It has been ruled a constitutional violation to force prolife people to pay for abortions or abortifacients against their beliefs.

The same should apply to right to health care and free market choices.
in that case again the free market is the default option that
allows BOTH groups to "fund their own programs and keep them out of govt"

So instead of forcing the govt health care on the free market believers,
free market should remain the default (similar to how prochoice is the default that still allows prolife to operate)

But this is not what is being enforced.
The ACA mandates that force govt managed health regulations and requirements
is being IMPOSED on opponents who believe in free market solutions to sustainable health care.
So the people who don't comply face FINES AND PENALTIES that go into this system against those beliefs.

That is discrimination.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, beliefs don't hold some hallowed status that places them above the law.

I've always found your fixation on this issue to be.....bizarre.

Hi Skylar so why doesn't that hold for "belief in health care as a right" and "belief in marriage equality" ?

You can believe whatever you want. But that doesn't place your beliefs above the law. Or mandate that the law represent your beliefs.

Would you like to enter the Bullring and tell me why
secular political beliefs are treated unequally as religious beliefs,
and why they AREN'T being all held in check equally under Constitutional laws?

I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for. The right to express a belief? That's free speech. The right to hold a belief? That's legal.

How then are 'secular beliefs' treated unequally with religious beliefs?

(1) Right, Skylar I am NOT saying to put anyone's beliefs above the law
but to protect ALL beliefs and creeds equally under the law from either
infringement, imposition, or discrimination by govt.

Get specific. How are beliefs being 'infringed, imposed, or discriminated against' by government?

(2)
How then are 'secular beliefs' treated unequally with religious beliefs?

EX 1: when right to life advocates want to pass a law biased by their beliefs,
this gets struck down by "separation of church and state"
even SYMBOLS that aren't imposing or forcing anyone (like a cross or a Bible,
and now Christmas trees and nativity scenes) lead to lawsuits to REMOVE these from public arenas.

When a right to life advocate wants to pass a law based on their belief....they run into the individual's right to privacy.

So your example doesn't work. As its based on a false premise.

However, this standard is NOT held for
* the beliefs in health care as a right, that was equally opposed by those who aren't represented by this belief
but are now held to tax penalties and fines over this issue
* the beliefs in marriage equality for same sex couples
which was pushed through the govt, even though the beliefs in traditional marriage are struck down
as "violating separation of church and state"
BOTH are beliefs and should be treated equally, not favoring one through govt while striking down the other
* beliefs about gender and orientation that are "faith based"
are supported by laws favoring one sides' beliefs instead of
treating both sides equally since this area remains "faith based"

How are they not being treated equally?

And beliefs in traditional marriage weren't 'struck down'. Laws that prohibited same sex marriage were struck down as violating individual rights.

Again, your premise is simply not accurate. A belief and a law are not the same thing. You can hold the belief that traditional marriage is the only marriage. You can't pass a law that violates the rights of other people.

Do you see the distinction?

 

[regent]

The Constitution is what the Court say it is, said Justice Holmes.

 

[Centinel]

The Constitution is what the Court say it is, said Justice Holmes.

The states wrote the constitution. The federal government is a result of the compact they established between themselves. The states are the principals and the fed gov is their agent. The states are the authority on what their compact means.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution is what the Court say it is, said Justice Holmes.

The states wrote the constitution. The federal government is a result of the compact they established between themselves. The states are the principals and the fed gov is their agent. Agents don't tell principals what they meant when they created their agent.

Save that the 14th amendment specifically grants the federal government the authority to prevent the States from violating the rights of federal citizens.

With the founders recognizing that the federal judiciary as the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

 

[Centinel]

Save that the 14th amendment specifically grants the federal government the authority to prevent the States from violating the rights of federal citizens.

With the founders recognizing that the federal judiciary as the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

Yes, since the establishment of the constitution, the states have amended the agreement between themselves by adding the 14th (and other) amendments. Yet the federal government continues to be their agent, and they continue to the the authority on what they meant when they established their compact between themselves.

Remember, the states are parties to the compact they made between themselves. The federal government is not a party to this compact. The federal government is the creature of this compact, and is the creation and servant of the states.

 

[Skylar]

Save that the 14th amendment specifically grants the federal government the authority to prevent the States from violating the rights of federal citizens.

With the founders recognizing that the federal judiciary as the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

Yes, since the establishment of the constitution, the states have amended the agreement between themselves by adding the 14th (and other) amendments. Yet the federal government continues to be their agent, and they continue to the the authority on what they meant when they established their compact between themselves.

And they do. Its called the amendment process, which the States can initiate and pass unilaterally. However, if an individual state wants to violate the rights of Federal Citizens, its going to be checked by the Federal Judiciary.

And frankly, should be.

Remember, the states are parties to the compact they made between themselves. The federal government is not a party to this compact. The federal government is the creature of this compact, and is the creation and servant of the states.

A better analogy would be Concurrent Sovereigns. As the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction over its own territory and property. While sharing concurrent jurisdiction with every State. And was set by the founders as the arbiters of the meaning of the constitution through the federal judiciary.

 

[Centinel]

A better analogy would be Concurrent Sovereigns. As the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction over its own territory and property. While sharing concurrent jurisdiction with every State. And was set by the founders as the arbiters of the meaning of the constitution through the federal judiciary.

That would be incorrect. It is the states are are sovereign. Delegates from the states met and they established a compact between themselves, which they each ratified. The federal government is the result of these sovereign states forming their compact. It did not exist previously, as the sovereign states did. It is a result of their agreement. Without them, it would not exist.

When the states wrote their constitution, they did not include language making the federal government the arbiter of the meaning of their compact.

 

[Skylar]

A better analogy would be Concurrent Sovereigns. As the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction over its own territory and property. While sharing concurrent jurisdiction with every State. And was set by the founders as the arbiters of the meaning of the constitution through the federal judiciary.

That would be incorrect. It is the states are are sovereign.

Then how do you explain the exclusive jurisdiction over federal terrritories and property possessed by the Federal government? Or the federal government's jurisdiction within all State territory?

The former speaking to the Federal government's sovereignty. And the latter speaking to the sharing of authority over the territory of the States.

Delegates from the states met and they established a compact between themselves, which they each ratified. The federal government is the result of these sovereign states forming their compact. It did not exist previously, as the sovereign states did. It is a result of their agreement. Without them, it would not exist.

And when they did they relinquished powers. As laid out in the constitution. These powers were relinquished to the federal government. And not by 'a state'. But by all the States.

And 'the States' still possess the authority to change anything they wish in the Constitution: Amendments.

A State does not. Which doesn't speak to the 'sovereignty' of an individual state.

 

[Centinel]

Then how do you explain the exclusive jurisdiction over federal terrritories and property possessed by the Federal government?

That is easily explained. The states included the following in their agreement between themselves:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

Or the federal government's jurisdiction within all State territory?

The federal government's jurisdiction is limited to exercising the powers that the states delegated to it.

The former speaking to the Federal government's sovereignty. And the latter speaking to the sharing of authority over the territory of the States.

And when they did they relinquished powers.

No, as they made clear in their conventions, they delegated powers.

As laid out in the constitution. These powers were relinquished to the federal government. And not by 'a state'. But by all the States.

And 'the States' still possess the authority to change anything they wish in the Constitution: Amendments.

A State does not. Which doesn't speak to the 'sovereignty' of an individual state.

Each of the states in the union is sovereign. The federal government is an agent of these sovereign states.

 

[Skylar]

Then how do you explain the exclusive jurisdiction over federal terrritories and property possessed by the Federal government?

That is easily explained. The states included the following in their agreement between themselves:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

These aren't agreements between the 'States'. But agreement between a State and the Federal government. If Alabama wanted to sell land to the Federal Government, California gets to say nothing on the matter.

And with the Federal government exercising exclusive authority, how can you claim that the Federal Government isn't a sovereign?

Or the federal government's jurisdiction within all State territory?

The federal government's jurisdiction is limited to exercising the powers that the states delegated to it.
[/quote]

Then you acknowledge concurrent jurisdiction, with every state sharing jurisdiction over its territory with the federal government. The only thing left for you to fully embrace my argument is to acknowledge that the federal government is a sovereign.

Which is self evident given their exclusive jurisdiction over federal property and federal territory. Which they couldn't exercise without being a sovereign. The States exercise exclusive jurisdiction over no territory. None at all. Every square inch of their territory is ALSO territory of the United States. Over which the government of the United States also has jurisdiction.

In addition, the Federal government also has exclusive jurisdiction over territory that no State has authority over.

As I said: dual sovereigns and concurrent jurisdiction.

No, as they made clear in their conventions, they delegated powers.

They made it clear that these are powers that an individual state can no longer exercise. The states certainly have the authority to create new amendments to do whatever they want. But short of that, the power in question is no longer theirs to wield.

It is the federal government's to wield. Not any state's.

Each of the states in the union is sovereign. The federal government is an agent of these sovereign states.

Each State is a concurrent sovereign. No State has any territory over which it exercises exclusive jurisdiction. Every inch is shared with the Federal Government. The Federal government in contrast does have territory over which it exercises exclusive jurisdiction. All State citizens are also Federal citizens. The reverse is not necessarily true.

And you keep switching between 'individual state' and 'these sovereign states' as if they are the same legal entity exercising the same authority.

They aren't. The several states (3/4 of them anyway) can do things that an individual state cannot. And in terms of the relationship between the States and Federal government, the federal government is not the 'agent' of any State. Its the agent of the Several States. With the threshold of the authority of the Several States.....being 3/4 of their number.

Beneath that threshold, not so much.

 

[Centinel]

Beneath that threshold, not so much.

The states were the authors of the constitution. The states' constitution created the fed gov. How can the creation tell the creators what they meant?

 

[regent]

Beneath that threshold, not so much.

The states were the authors of the constitution. The states' constitution created the fed gov. How can the creation tell the creators what they meant?

When the states voted to join they were now in the army, and the Civil War said in for life.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution is what the Court say it is, said Justice Holmes.

The states wrote the constitution. The federal government is a result of the compact they established between themselves. The states are the principals and the fed gov is their agent. The states are the authority on what their compact means.

Wrong.

The people created the Constitution, not the states, codifying their intent that the states not interfere with the relationship between the people and their National government:

'It might be objected that because the States ratified the Constitution, the people can delegate power only through the States or by acting in their capacities as citizens of particular States. See post, at 2-3. But in McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court set forth its authoritative rejection of this idea:

"The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument . . . was submitted to the people. . . . It is true, they assembled in their several States--and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments." 4 Wheat., at 403.

[T]he National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States."'

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

Consequently, the states are subordinate to the Federal government, to Federal laws, to rulings of the Federal courts, and to the Federal Constitution (see Article VI, US Cont.); likewise the rights of the people are paramount, immune from attack by the states, where the Supreme Court, not the states, determines the meaning of the Founding Document and the intent of the Framing Generation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A better analogy would be Concurrent Sovereigns. As the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction over its own territory and property. While sharing concurrent jurisdiction with every State. And was set by the founders as the arbiters of the meaning of the constitution through the federal judiciary.

That would be incorrect. It is the states are are sovereign. Delegates from the states met and they established a compact between themselves, which they each ratified. The federal government is the result of these sovereign states forming their compact. It did not exist previously, as the sovereign states did. It is a result of their agreement. Without them, it would not exist.

When the states wrote their constitution, they did not include language making the federal government the arbiter of the meaning of their compact.

No, this would be incorrect.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

The supremacy of the Federal government, the Federal Constitution, its case law, and the Federal judiciary was the original intent of the people, where it was the people who created the Constitution, not the states, reflecting the will of the people to be subject solely to the rule of law.

 

[Centinel]

Wrong.

The people created the Constitution, not the states, codifying their intent that the states not interfere with the relationship between the people and their National government:

Wrong.

Article 7:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

See? Between the states.