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

[Centinel]

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.

So where is the language the states included making the federal government the arbiter of the meaning of their compact? I don't even see the word "meaning" in the quote you provided.

 

[Centinel]

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.

The states cannot be subordinate to an agent they created through a compact between themselves.

However, in their making their compact, they all agreed that the constitution, and laws made in accordance with it, would be the supreme law of the land.

 

[Skylar]

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?

They can. With a 3/4 majority. The same threshold necessary to create the United States.

Remember, a state didn't create the United States. The several States did. And the threshold of their actions being 3/4.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The states cannot be subordinate to an agent they created through a compact between themselves.

Actually, they can. If your argument were valid than an individual citizen couldn't be imprisoned or fined by the State the people created. As the people are a parties to the compact that created the State as their agent.

But the State most definitely can weild the authority of the People and punish those who violate the people's laws.

Your folly is in equating A State with the Several States. They aren't the same nor carry the same authority. Anymore than a person is the same thing as 'The People'. The people collectively have more authority than an individual does. The Several States have authority that an individual State does not.

And the Several States can make any changes they wish to the Federal Government with the same threshold necessary to create the Federal government: 3/4.

 

[Skylar]

And with your complete abandonment of any discussion of concurrent jurisdiction and dual sovereigns, can I take it you have recognized the validity of my points on the matter?

 

[Centinel]

They can. With a 3/4 majority. The same threshold necessary to create the United States.

Remember, a state didn't create the United States. The several States did. And the threshold of their actions being 3/4.

Obviously a single state didn't create the union. The union is a compact between several states. And the federal government is the agent the states created through their compact.

 

[Centinel]

Actually, they can. If your argument were valid than an individual citizen couldn't be imprisoned or fined by the State the people created. As the people are a parties to the compact that created the State as their agent.

But the State most definitely can weild the authority of the People and punish those who violate the people's laws.

Your folly is in equating A State with the Several States. They aren't the same nor carry the same authority. Anymore than a person is the same thing as 'The People'. The people collectively have more authority than an individual does. The Several States have authority that an individual State does not.

And the Several States can make any changes they wish to the Federal Government with the same threshold necessary to create the Federal government: 3/4.

Obviously, when the states established their compact, they set up a rule that, by agreement of 3/4 of them, it could be amended. This is known.

My point is that it is the states that are the principals and the federal government is their agent, created through their ratification of the constitution they wrote. It is ridiculous to think that the agent could possibly know more about the meaning of the agreement they made than they do themselves, as they are the authors of that agreement. So to say only the federal government (the agent of the states) knows what the constitution means is ridiculous on its face.

 

[Centinel]

And with your complete abandonment of any discussion of concurrent jurisdiction and dual sovereigns, can I take it you have recognized the validity of my points on the matter?

I don't agree with your take, but I didn't address it because I didn't find it relevant to the question of who is it that knows the true meaning of the constitution.

 

[Skylar]

They can. With a 3/4 majority. The same threshold necessary to create the United States.

Remember, a state didn't create the United States. The several States did. And the threshold of their actions being 3/4.

Obviously a single state didn't create the union. The union is a compact between several states. And the federal government is the agent the states created through their compact.

Then you acknowledge that the theshold for exercising that authority is 3/4s?

I

 

[Skylar]

And with your complete abandonment of any discussion of concurrent jurisdiction and dual sovereigns, can I take it you have recognized the validity of my points on the matter?

I don't agree with your take, but I didn't address it because I didn't find it relevant to the question of who is it that knows the true meaning of the constitution.

Its not my take. Its James Madison's and the Supreme Court's. And in terms of sovereignty, its immediately relevant. As we're not talking about a single sovereign. We're talking about dual sovereigns with concurrent jurisdiction. Its by far a more apt analogy. As it accurately describes the situation.

Every State shares sovereignty with the federal government. The reverse is not true. The Federal government holds territory of unique jurisdiction, over which no state has authority. And make no mistake: the Federal government is a sovereign. Its simply not the *only* sovereign.

 

[Skylar]

Actually, they can. If your argument were valid than an individual citizen couldn't be imprisoned or fined by the State the people created. As the people are a parties to the compact that created the State as their agent.

But the State most definitely can weild the authority of the People and punish those who violate the people's laws.

Your folly is in equating A State with the Several States. They aren't the same nor carry the same authority. Anymore than a person is the same thing as 'The People'. The people collectively have more authority than an individual does. The Several States have authority that an individual State does not.

And the Several States can make any changes they wish to the Federal Government with the same threshold necessary to create the Federal government: 3/4.

Obviously, when the states established their compact, they set up a rule that, by agreement of 3/4 of them, it could be amended. This is known.

My point is that it is the states that are the principals and the federal government is their agent, created through their ratification of the constitution they wrote. It is ridiculous to think that the agent could possibly know more about the meaning of the agreement they made than they do themselves, as they are the authors of that agreement.

Again, the Several States can change the constitution to match whatever they feel it should be. But beneath the threshold of amendment, its the federal government's role to interpret the constitution and to hold the States to it. With the Bill of Rights applied to the States with the 14th amendment.

Thus, in any contest between a State and the Federal government on what the constitution is supposed to mean, the power delegated to the Federal goernment by the Several States trumps the authority of a single State. Even multiple States lack the authority of the Federal government in interpreting the Constitution.

Its only at the threshold of the amendment that the authority of the Several States exceeds that of the Federal government in terms of the meaning of the Constitution.

So to say only the federal government (the agent of the states) knows what the constitution means is ridiculous on its face.

Which might have some relevance if that was the argument being forwarded. Instead, its that the Several States at the threshold of 3/4 have the authority to override the federal government in its duty to interpret the constitution. But beneath that threshold, any individual state or group of states lacks such authority. And the Federal Government's duty to interpret the constitution is supreme.

It would be akin to recognizing that the judiciary of a State is delegated by the People of that State the authority to interpret the State's constitution. The State government, along with its judiciary are agents of people. Yet a lone individual couldn't override that State's judiciary. Even a group of people couldn't unless that group was of sufficient size. But when the People in sufficient number get together to amend that State's constitution, they override the authority that was delegated to that State's judiciary. And impose whatever they wish.

But to claim that the federal government lacks the authority to interpret the constitution over the interpretation of an individual state would be as ludicrous as claiming that the judiciary of a State lacked the authority to interpret the State's constitution over an individual person.

Obviously the State judiciary has such authority over an individual citizen. Obviously the federal judiciary has such authority over an individual state. And below the numbers sufficient to amend their respective constitutions, that authority would be supreme.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

1. Example: if someone believes in paying for and providing health care by free market (such as donating to charity to pay for others, and paying for one's own health care with or without insurance as long as it's paid)
this is now PENALIZED -- it is NOT an equal choice as the others that aren't fined and are regulated by govt
(which is also against Constitutional beliefs in limited govt where such authorization requires an amendment voted on by States first, see below).

Under ACA, free market choices for paying for health care is NO LONGER an equal choice, but citizens get financially penalized for any other CHOICE/BELIEF about paying for health besides
(a) govt regulated insurance (b) limited religious exemptions regulated by govt (c) federally regulated exchanges or hardship exemptions requiring registration through govt

Thus, people like me who identify as CONSTITUTIONALISTS and believe
(a) that govt is not designed nor has authority to regulate choice of health care for citizens
(b) any such expansion of federal govt requires a Constitutional Amendment before adding or expanding power
(c) that law abiding citizens were DEPRIVED of liberty WITHOUT due process, proof or conviction of crime,
because the given ACA mandates regulate and restrict health care choices under penalty of law
(d) the imposition on taxpayers constitutes "taxation without representation" because the tax/public health bill concerns private and personal health care and financial decisions that belong to individual citizens, and should be voted on at the State level, not mandated by federal govt (again unless there is an amendment voted on first)

2. Another level of discrimination by creed:
If we compare to prochoice and right to life beliefs:

The prochoice advocates argue that the "right to life beliefs" are imposing faith-based values and beliefs through govt, and demand FREE CHOICE instead of being forced to RESTRICT choices because of "OTHER people's beliefs or agenda they don't share." So they insist on FREE CHOICE of abortion WITHOUT PENALTY.

Here, free market advocates argue that the "right to health care" is imposing unproven faith-based beliefs through govt, and demand FREE CHOICE instead of being forced to RESTRICT choices because of "OTHER people's beliefs or agenda they don't share." However, this argument for FREE CHOICE is not even recognized. It is assumed people need to buy insurance anyway, so what difference does it make to require it?

That's similar to the PROLIFE argument that abortion is murder "not a choice" so nobody should be choosing that anyway!

My point is, if you compare the two, clearly there is DISCRIMINATION against the "right to life" beliefs and defense of free market, compared with the "right to health care" beliefs and defense of free choice in abortion.

Most disturbing to me, is the argument that govt should NOT be used to penalize the choice of abortion
yet govt IS being used to PENALIZE the choice of "not buying insurance" which is HARMLESS in comparison.
The choice of abortion runs a much higher risk of permanent damage and irreversible harm from terminating life
than the choice "not to buy insurance" which doesn't mean automatic death -- it still means someone could pay for health care other ways. It doesn't automatically mean someone DIES if they "don't buy insurance"
but choosing abortion terminates life and does pose greater risks. So why is abortion NOT penalized, but something as natural as wanting to CHOOSE HOW pay for and provide health care is penalized?

This shows a bias in political beliefs, and discrimination by creed for govt to impose one while penalizing the other. To protect both equally, people of both beliefs should have equal choice to fund theirs without penalty.

(2)

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.

Skylar that's the problem right there: the "right to privacy" was NOT enforced equally with the health care mandates. That is a private decision also, the financial and health care decisions and choices.

This is the same argument, using your terms about "right to privacy."

The "discrimination by creed" is shown by only blocking "right to life" by using this argument,
but IMPOSING the govt mandated health care DESPITE the fact it infringes on "right to privacy" or free choice in private personal decisions that are NOT the business of govt to regulate.

EXACTLY Skylar: if these creeds were treated equally BOTH the right to life AND the right to health care would be EQUALLY STRUCK DOWN because they EQUALLY violate the free choice in PRIVATE decisions by individuals who don't CONSENT to govt regulating those choices.

Very good, thank you Skylar

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?

A. I am saying BOTH the laws on traditional marriage only AND the laws on same sex marriage
VIOLATE the rights of other people NOT to establish beliefs through govt.

I am not saying one is okay through govt and the other is not: NEITHER is okay for govt to establish without public consensus since they BOTH involve beliefs about marriage

B. The way to treat them equally is for the laws on marriage to be completely NEUTRAL in language,
like a financial contract or custody agreement between two partners and no mention of social relationships
unless people agree to the wording so it doesn't impose any bias.

Then leave it to the churches, individuals, or private institutions to decide if they recognize or conduct
same sex marriage, or recognize benefits, etc.

If people CAN'T AGREE ON SOCIAL VALUES then that is the same as MORALS and BELIEFS
that Govt cannot regulate for people.

All these values and beliefs are protected equally under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM that govt cannot regulate.

So KEEP these values and beliefs about marriage and benefits PRIVATE under RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
and everyone has EQUAL protection of the laws to do what they want in private, including setting up their
own systems of benefits that are up to the choice of members to participate in and to fund. Keep it private like religious organizations and programs that people can choose depending on their PERSONAL BELIEFS.

That's how to treat them equally.

That would stop the fighting, if everyone could separate and have their own marriage/benefits policies
and not force theirs on people who don't share the same beliefs or values.

The govt can still handle the FINANCIAL and PROPERTY contracts, but nothing that mentions
social relationships or orientation/gender if that is going to introduce a contested bias.

Either pass laws that are so neutral everyone agrees to them, or if there are parts people reject as biased then keep that part private where people set up their own marriage/benefits programs through institutions of their choice.

This is only because marriage involves beliefs, so only if people AGREE on the laws then govt can endorse and enforce them. If people DON'T agree on beliefs, then the govt would be infringing unconstitutionally to endorse one side only, because that is establishing a biased belief that the opposing side doesn't share and should not be forced to compromise by govt.

Marriage does not have to be through govt. It was only through govt when there was a consensus, so there was no perceived imposition. But once this was challenged, and it brought out different beliefs that not everyone shared, and even opposed, then either the laws have to be written neutrally where consensus is restored, or shift marriage and benefits back to private levels where everyone can fund the policies of their own choice.

 

[emilynghiem]

Actually, they can. If your argument were valid than an individual citizen couldn't be imprisoned or fined by the State the people created. As the people are a parties to the compact that created the State as their agent.

But the State most definitely can weild the authority of the People and punish those who violate the people's laws.

Your folly is in equating A State with the Several States. They aren't the same nor carry the same authority. Anymore than a person is the same thing as 'The People'. The people collectively have more authority than an individual does. The Several States have authority that an individual State does not.

And the Several States can make any changes they wish to the Federal Government with the same threshold necessary to create the Federal government: 3/4.

Obviously, when the states established their compact, they set up a rule that, by agreement of 3/4 of them, it could be amended. This is known.

My point is that it is the states that are the principals and the federal government is their agent, created through their ratification of the constitution they wrote. It is ridiculous to think that the agent could possibly know more about the meaning of the agreement they made than they do themselves, as they are the authors of that agreement.

Again, the Several States can change the constitution to match whatever they feel it should be. But beneath the threshold of amendment, its the federal government's role to interpret the constitution and to hold the States to it. With the Bill of Rights applied to the States with the 14th amendment.

Thus, in any contest between a State and the Federal government on what the constitution is supposed to mean, the power delegated to the Federal goernment by the Several States trumps the authority of a single State. Even multiple States lack the authority of the Federal government in interpreting the Constitution.

Its only at the threshold of the amendment that the authority of the Several States exceeds that of the Federal government in terms of the meaning of the Constitution.

So to say only the federal government (the agent of the states) knows what the constitution means is ridiculous on its face.

Which might have some relevance if that was the argument being forwarded. Instead, its that the Several States at the threshold of 3/4 have the authority to override the federal government in its duty to interpret the constitution. But beneath that threshold, any individual state or group of states lacks such authority. And the Federal Government's duty to interpret the constitution is supreme.

It would be akin to recognizing that the judiciary of a State is delegated by the People of that State the authority to interpret the State's constitution. The State government, along with its judiciary are agents of people. Yet a lone individual couldn't override that State's judiciary. Even a group of people couldn't unless that group was of sufficient size. But when the People in sufficient number get together to amend that State's constitution, they override the authority that was delegated to that State's judiciary. And impose whatever they wish.

But to claim that the federal government lacks the authority to interpret the constitution over the interpretation of an individual state would be as ludicrous as claiming that the judiciary of a State lacked the authority to interpret the State's constitution over an individual person.

Obviously the State judiciary has such authority over an individual citizen. Obviously the federal judiciary has such authority over an individual state. And below the numbers sufficient to amend their respective constitutions, that authority would be supreme.

Yes and no Skylar
I would agree with you when it comes to SECULAR laws that people AGREE to submit to govt authority.
But with BELIEFS, no human being I know agrees to submit any such thing to govt or church or any authority
to decide for them. That runs against human nature.

So there is a LIMIT to govt authority.

The First Amendment clearly states that CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; the Fourteenth Amendment EXPANDED all these protections of the laws to the STATES to enforce for persons under their jurisdiction; and the Civil Rights Act EXPANDED these protections further to all public institutions.

So at NO level of govt can public authority be abused to impose or infringe on the beliefs or creeds of individuals.

Just because govt and courts are run by human beings, and as such can imposed biased rulings,
does not mean we have to blindly follow them.

We retain the right to petition, to redress grievance, to demand equal protection of the laws from abuses that violate our rights or discriminate against us by creed.

That goes for not only the judiciary but any level of govt where we feel we are denied equal rights or protections.

We are not required to give up our beliefs to the whims of people running govt.
That is against the Constitution, and it is up to us to enforce it consistently so such violations STOP.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Dear regent we would have the equivalent of a secular theocracy
if the Courts and Judges are treated as having divine right to rule and to "pontificate like
the Pope on the bench" for all people to obey whatever they rule on.

The ultimate check on govt is the People. As Jefferson reiterated that REASON was
necessary to follow and apply at all times, and that the "just powers of government are
derived from the CONSENT of the governed."

We cannot just blindly follow whatever is decided through govt, because blind faith in
that is as bad as blind faith in religion. We should still check against our standards of
Constitutional and moral ethics and reason.

In the case of laws or rulings that are biased by BELIEF or FAITH-BASED arguments,
these should ESPECIALLY be checked against Constitutional principles of
religious freedom, equal protection of the laws for all people regardless of belief,
and specifically protection from discrimination by creed.

Ex: some examples of judicial rulings I found to be out of govt jurisdiction because they made
decisions FOR people in cases of conflict between EQUALLY faith-based, spiritual or
unproven choices:

A. the court decision to side with the husband of Terri Schiavo who had NO WRITTEN
PROOF that she wanted to die. Thus this was FAITH based. The court went with the
HUSBAND due to marriage laws recognizing his jurisdiction (and he was also legal guardian); however, the family had solid arguments that he had a CONFLICT of INTEREST in already starting a family and living with another woman and he was biased in his own beliefs toward terminating her life, while having no proof of her beliefs. Given this conflict of interest, the court COULD have treated all individuals equally who had BELIEFS about what Terri Schiavo wanted. The court could have order the family to MEDIATE until consensus is reached, so that everyone's beliefs are respected equally. Anyone who didn't believe in consensus could abstain from the process; and only include people willing to work together until a consensus is reached. Otherwise the court was making a spiritual faith-based decision and imposing it on Terri Schiavo and her family based on the BELIEFS of her husband shown to have a conflict of interest and a bias in his own beliefs and self-interest in terminating her life, instead of letting her family take over custody and care for her if he no longer wanted that responsibility.

B. the court decision(s) creating or establishing the BELIEF in marriage equality
This should have been done on a state level, and by consensus of the people per state since marriage involves personal beliefs. Either agree on the wording of the laws to be completely neutral and free of bias toward one belief or another, or remove marriage from the state and keep it private through individuals or private institutions.

It was not the place of federal govt or judges to decide marriage beliefs for the public.
Secular civil contracts could have been declared either open to all beliefs, or banished from the govt to regulate.
And then leave it to the States to decide if they want to privatize marriage and benefits, or agree on a public policy that includes all people of all beliefs. The courts should have remained NEUTRAL and ordered States to come up with a consensus policy that was universally inclusive, or else remove marriage and keep it private.

C. the court decisions ruling in favor of the ACA mandates
1. The ACA mandates in expanding the powers of federal govt to regulate and fine private health care choices
should have required a Constitutional Amendment voted on by States before considering this authorized
2. as is, the enforcement of the mandates as given discriminates on the basis of creed
a. the federal govt is basically regulating exemptions based on paid religious membership in preapproved groups
while denying exemptions to others; so it is federal govt regulating religion, and deciding which get exemptions
b. people of Constitutional beliefs who believe in free market and the rights of people and the States to decide on health care and finances are penalized for not complying with federal mandates clearly violating said beliefs.
3. If I were on the Supreme Court I would have argued that the mandates must be by voluntary compliance or it's unconstitutional to require this for citizens without their consent. If people want benefits under this ACA, they can choose to be under the requirements as given. I would argue that freedom of choice is necessary by the First and Fourteenth Amendment to respect equal beliefs of citizens that the bill violates the principle of "no taxation without representation"; the Tenth Amendment rights of states and people; as well as Constitutional laws against depriving citizens of liberty without due process and/or imposing servitude involuntarily except as penalty for a crime.

I would not have found that the govt had enough "compelling interest" to impose restrictions on individual liberty
or that "imposing insurance requirements" was the "minimal restriction".

The "minimal restriction" might be to compel citizens to pay for health care and not impose this on the public,
or to require states to provide means of ensuring health coverage for citizens instead of imposing this federally.

But there is nothing in the Constitution giving federal govt the authority to DICTATE MANDATE or REGULATE HOW THIS IS DONE. The most that could have been compelled is to require states or people to cover their health care costs and/or the population of their states. The "least restrictive" would have been not to dictate how.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Fine Skylar

I will try writing a public letter to Justice Roberts and President Obama, as well as Congresswoman Pelosi and other Democrats touting this ACA mandate as the law of the land,
and try to convince more people, especially in federal govt positions, to recognize POLITICAL BELIEFS
that should be treated equally and not penalized by laws in favor of other beliefs.

People have to understand the argument FIRST before we can expect to translate it into our
legal and governmental systems.

If enough people GET this argument, then we can possibly compel the lawmakers and judiciary
to reconsider the discriminatory effect of the laws and rulings that I argue impose on the basis of faith-based biases, and aren't equally protective or representative of the entire public the govt is supposed to serve.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

They can. With a 3/4 majority. The same threshold necessary to create the United States.

Remember, a state didn't create the United States. The several States did. And the threshold of their actions being 3/4.

Dear Skylar
so where is this 3/4 majority to amend the Constitution
to expand the powers of federal govt to regulate "health care choices for all citizens" and impose tax penalties
depending on choices and exemptions also regulated by govt.

 

[Centinel]

Then you acknowledge that the theshold for exercising that authority is 3/4s?

I

I acknowledge that the states, when they established their compact, agree that they could amend it by a 3/4 majority of them.

 

[Centinel]

Its not my take. Its James Madison's and the Supreme Court's. And in terms of sovereignty, its immediately relevant. As we're not talking about a single sovereign. We're talking about dual sovereigns with concurrent jurisdiction. Its by far a more apt analogy. As it accurately describes the situation.

Every State shares sovereignty with the federal government. The reverse is not true. The Federal government holds territory of unique jurisdiction, over which no state has authority. And make no mistake: the Federal government is a sovereign. Its simply not the *only* sovereign.

As established by the Treaty of Paris, the states are sovereign. The federal is an organization created by them through a treaty for the purpose of exercising a small set of enumerated powers on their behalf. It is not sovereign but only gains its power by having it delegated by the states.

 

[Skylar]

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?

They can. With a 3/4 majority. The same threshold necessary to create the United States.

Remember, a state didn't create the United States. The several States did. And the threshold of their actions being 3/4.

Dear Skylar
so where is this 3/4 majority to amend the Constitution
to expand the powers of federal govt to regulate "health care choices for all citizens" and impose tax penalties
depending on choices and exemptions also regulated by govt.

The Supreme Court has found that such an amendment is unnecessary. As its within the federal government's authority to do so.

The Several States can overturn the Supreme Court's finding on the matter with an amendment. But so far have chosen not to.

 

[Skylar]

Then you acknowledge that the theshold for exercising that authority is 3/4s?

I

I acknowledge that the states, when they established their compact, agree that they could amend it by a 3/4 majority of them.

Awesome. I agree.