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

[Skylar]

For the fifth time: The Preamble. Specifically, 'We the People of the United States'.

We can go round and round as often as you like. But pretending you've never gotten an answer doesn't magically make the content of the thread change. You have your answer. Either address it or don't.

Just remember....your argument was such a self contradictory mess that you've had to abandoned in entirely. Now refusing to even discuss it. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have had to run.

'We the People of the United States' isn't a prohibition on a state leaving the union.

'We the People of the United States' defines who the Principal of the compact of the Constituton are. And an individual State isn't 'We the People of the United States'. Only the Principal can modify the compact.

You're stuck. So much so that you can't even mention the basis of your own argument: the Principal/Agent relationship.

There's a reason why our system of law has never reflected your interpret ions: we're not obligated to ignore the huge holes in your reasoning just because you refuse to discuss them.

Please look at article I, section 10. This lists the prohibitions on the states. Nothing in there like "No state may leave the union".

Violating the constitution isn't a power possessed by anyone. Read the Supremacy Clause. And modifications to the Constitution by a single state would be a violation. The compact can only be modified its Principal. See Article V.

In what way would exiting the union be a violation of the constition. Is there any language prohibiting a state from exiting the union? If not, an exit would not modify the compact nor would it be a violation.

What the United States consist of is a matter of the constitutional compact. Modifying that would require agreement from the Principal. Which an individual State isn't.

I've answered your question. You answer mine.

If your conception of the principal/agent relationship is valid, why can't a citizen unilaterally declare their property to be its own country, no longer under the authority of the State, its laws, or its officers?

Okay, here's your answer: Because the state won't let them.

Applying your standard, what authority would the State have to stop them? Per you, the State is the agent of each individual person. With each individual being a principal .And a principal can interpret the law as they wish, do with their land as they wish, secede if they wish. With the agent having no authority to stop them. Per your reasoning, anyway.

If brute force is all it takes to make an action legally valid, then the strength of Union armies settled this legal matter years ago.

A state exiting the union wouldn't require a change to the compact by the principals.

Obviously they would. As it would change what the United States is consisted of. The United States, the agent of the Several States, would lose territory. The Several States directly or through their agent, would definitely get to say something about that. As they are the Principal. The 'parties to the Constitutional Compact' as Madison put it.

 

[Centinel]

'We the People of the United States' isn't a prohibition on a state leaving the union.

'We the People of the United States' defines who the Principal of the compact of the Constituton are. And an individual State isn't 'We the People of the United States'. Only the Principal can modify the compact.

You're stuck. So much so that you can't even mention the basis of your own argument: the Principal/Agent relationship.

There's a reason why our system of law has never reflected your interpret ions: we're not obligated to ignore the huge holes in your reasoning just because you refuse to discuss them.

Please look at article I, section 10. This lists the prohibitions on the states. Nothing in there like "No state may leave the union".

Violating the constitution isn't a power possessed by anyone. Read the Supremacy Clause. And modifications to the Constitution by a single state would be a violation. The compact can only be modified its Principal. See Article V.

In what way would exiting the union be a violation of the constition. Is there any language prohibiting a state from exiting the union? If not, an exit would not modify the compact nor would it be a violation.

What the United States consist of is a matter of the constitutional compact. Modifying that would require agreement from the Principal. Which an individual State isn't.

I've answered your question. You answer mine.

If your conception of the principal/agent relationship is valid, why can't a citizen unilaterally declare their property to be its own country, no longer under the authority of the State, its laws, or its officers?

Okay, here's your answer: Because the state won't let them.

Applying your standard, what authority would the State have to stop them? Per you, the State is the agent of each individual person. With each individual being a principal .And a principal can interpret the law as they wish, do with their land as they wish, secede if they wish. With the agent having no authority to stop them. Per your reasoning, anyway.

If brute force is all it takes to make an action legally valid, then the strength of Union armies settled this legal matter years ago.

A state exiting the union wouldn't require a change to the compact by the principals.

Obviously they would. As it would change what the United States is consisted of. The United States, the agent of the Several States, would lose territory. The Several States directly or through their agent, would definitely get to say something about that. As they are the Principal. The 'parties to the Constitutional Compact' as Madison put it.

A state exiting the union would not change the rules of the compact (which would require an amendment). The rules already allow a state to exit the union.

 

[Centinel]

'We the People of the United States' isn't a prohibition on a state leaving the union.

'We the People of the United States' defines who the Principal of the compact of the Constituton are. And an individual State isn't 'We the People of the United States'. Only the Principal can modify the compact.

You're stuck. So much so that you can't even mention the basis of your own argument: the Principal/Agent relationship.

There's a reason why our system of law has never reflected your interpret ions: we're not obligated to ignore the huge holes in your reasoning just because you refuse to discuss them.

Please look at article I, section 10. This lists the prohibitions on the states. Nothing in there like "No state may leave the union".

Violating the constitution isn't a power possessed by anyone. Read the Supremacy Clause. And modifications to the Constitution by a single state would be a violation. The compact can only be modified its Principal. See Article V.

In what way would exiting the union be a violation of the constition. Is there any language prohibiting a state from exiting the union? If not, an exit would not modify the compact nor would it be a violation.

What the United States consist of is a matter of the constitutional compact. Modifying that would require agreement from the Principal. Which an individual State isn't.

I've answered your question. You answer mine.

If your conception of the principal/agent relationship is valid, why can't a citizen unilaterally declare their property to be its own country, no longer under the authority of the State, its laws, or its officers?

Okay, here's your answer: Because the state won't let them.

Applying your standard, what authority would the State have to stop them?

None, as far as I can see.

 

[Skylar]

'We the People of the United States' defines who the Principal of the compact of the Constituton are. And an individual State isn't 'We the People of the United States'. Only the Principal can modify the compact.

You're stuck. So much so that you can't even mention the basis of your own argument: the Principal/Agent relationship.

There's a reason why our system of law has never reflected your interpret ions: we're not obligated to ignore the huge holes in your reasoning just because you refuse to discuss them.
Violating the constitution isn't a power possessed by anyone. Read the Supremacy Clause. And modifications to the Constitution by a single state would be a violation. The compact can only be modified its Principal. See Article V.

In what way would exiting the union be a violation of the constition. Is there any language prohibiting a state from exiting the union? If not, an exit would not modify the compact nor would it be a violation.

What the United States consist of is a matter of the constitutional compact. Modifying that would require agreement from the Principal. Which an individual State isn't.

I've answered your question. You answer mine.

If your conception of the principal/agent relationship is valid, why can't a citizen unilaterally declare their property to be its own country, no longer under the authority of the State, its laws, or its officers?

Okay, here's your answer: Because the state won't let them.

Applying your standard, what authority would the State have to stop them? Per you, the State is the agent of each individual person. With each individual being a principal .And a principal can interpret the law as they wish, do with their land as they wish, secede if they wish. With the agent having no authority to stop them. Per your reasoning, anyway.

If brute force is all it takes to make an action legally valid, then the strength of Union armies settled this legal matter years ago.

A state exiting the union wouldn't require a change to the compact by the principals.

Obviously they would. As it would change what the United States is consisted of. The United States, the agent of the Several States, would lose territory. The Several States directly or through their agent, would definitely get to say something about that. As they are the Principal. The 'parties to the Constitutional Compact' as Madison put it.

A state exiting the union would not change the rules of the compact (which would require an amendment). The rules already allow a state to exit the union.

Obvious nonsense. It would change what the United States consisted of by common compact. And there is no rule to allow a state to leave. Just as there is no rule to allow an individual citizen to leave a State.

 

[Skylar]

'We the People of the United States' defines who the Principal of the compact of the Constituton are. And an individual State isn't 'We the People of the United States'. Only the Principal can modify the compact.

You're stuck. So much so that you can't even mention the basis of your own argument: the Principal/Agent relationship.

There's a reason why our system of law has never reflected your interpret ions: we're not obligated to ignore the huge holes in your reasoning just because you refuse to discuss them.
Violating the constitution isn't a power possessed by anyone. Read the Supremacy Clause. And modifications to the Constitution by a single state would be a violation. The compact can only be modified its Principal. See Article V.

In what way would exiting the union be a violation of the constition. Is there any language prohibiting a state from exiting the union? If not, an exit would not modify the compact nor would it be a violation.

What the United States consist of is a matter of the constitutional compact. Modifying that would require agreement from the Principal. Which an individual State isn't.

I've answered your question. You answer mine.

If your conception of the principal/agent relationship is valid, why can't a citizen unilaterally declare their property to be its own country, no longer under the authority of the State, its laws, or its officers?

Okay, here's your answer: Because the state won't let them.

Applying your standard, what authority would the State have to stop them?

None, as far as I can see.

Thus, per you an individual citizen can secede from the State....can interpret the laws as they see fit? Can unilaterally declare that the laws don't apply to them?

And following your argument, the individual can secede from the United States as well, yes?

 

[Centinel]

In what way would exiting the union be a violation of the constition. Is there any language prohibiting a state from exiting the union? If not, an exit would not modify the compact nor would it be a violation.

What the United States consist of is a matter of the constitutional compact. Modifying that would require agreement from the Principal. Which an individual State isn't.

I've answered your question. You answer mine.

If your conception of the principal/agent relationship is valid, why can't a citizen unilaterally declare their property to be its own country, no longer under the authority of the State, its laws, or its officers?

Okay, here's your answer: Because the state won't let them.

Applying your standard, what authority would the State have to stop them?

None, as far as I can see.

Thus, per you an individual citizen can secede from the State....can interpret the laws as they see fit? Can unilaterally declare that the laws don't apply to them?

And following your argument, the individual can secede from the United States as well, yes?

You asked me what authority the State would have to stop a person from exiting the political union into to which he had previously entered. And I said I can't see any such authority. Having exited, he has no standing to interpret the laws of the polity he left.

 

[12icer]

For SKYLAR,, Actually If you do not agree with the position stated in original the post your answer would be "NO", and your defining reason for the lack of parallel ,or the tangent if that were your position, summary events would be the logical content of a post. Since I see only a monoplanic thought process, Have it as you will, and continue to define the idea by ONLY a singular line of inference and so bound plausible events, and ignore the other possible events, and the history that either has proved, or disproved your position.

 

[Centinel]

In what way would exiting the union be a violation of the constition. Is there any language prohibiting a state from exiting the union? If not, an exit would not modify the compact nor would it be a violation.

What the United States consist of is a matter of the constitutional compact. Modifying that would require agreement from the Principal. Which an individual State isn't.

I've answered your question. You answer mine.

If your conception of the principal/agent relationship is valid, why can't a citizen unilaterally declare their property to be its own country, no longer under the authority of the State, its laws, or its officers?

Okay, here's your answer: Because the state won't let them.

Applying your standard, what authority would the State have to stop them? Per you, the State is the agent of each individual person. With each individual being a principal .And a principal can interpret the law as they wish, do with their land as they wish, secede if they wish. With the agent having no authority to stop them. Per your reasoning, anyway.

If brute force is all it takes to make an action legally valid, then the strength of Union armies settled this legal matter years ago.

A state exiting the union wouldn't require a change to the compact by the principals.

Obviously they would. As it would change what the United States is consisted of. The United States, the agent of the Several States, would lose territory. The Several States directly or through their agent, would definitely get to say something about that. As they are the Principal. The 'parties to the Constitutional Compact' as Madison put it.

A state exiting the union would not change the rules of the compact (which would require an amendment). The rules already allow a state to exit the union.

Obvious nonsense. It would change what the United States consisted of by common compact. And there is no rule to allow a state to leave. Just as there is no rule to allow an individual citizen to leave a State.

There is no rule preventing a state from leaving. You understand, I assume, that, per the 10th amendment, states may do whatever they are not constitutionally prohibited from doing?

Where is the constitutional prohibition against a state leaving the union?

 

[Skylar]

What the United States consist of is a matter of the constitutional compact. Modifying that would require agreement from the Principal. Which an individual State isn't.

I've answered your question. You answer mine.

If your conception of the principal/agent relationship is valid, why can't a citizen unilaterally declare their property to be its own country, no longer under the authority of the State, its laws, or its officers?

Okay, here's your answer: Because the state won't let them.

Applying your standard, what authority would the State have to stop them?

None, as far as I can see.

Thus, per you an individual citizen can secede from the State....can interpret the laws as they see fit? Can unilaterally declare that the laws don't apply to them?

And following your argument, the individual can secede from the United States as well, yes?

You asked me what authority the State would have to stop a person from exiting the political union into to which he had previously entered. And I said I can't see any such authority. Having exited, he has no standing to interpret the laws of the polity he left.

Nodding....and you've also said that the Principal can interpret the law as they see fit. Specifically, the States and the Constitution. Would this also apply to the individual? If they decide that say, tax laws don't apply to them because of their personal interpretation of the meaning of say, 'income', does that mean that they have no obligation to pay taxes?

If not, why not?

And just to clarify, can an individual secede from the United States as well? Or just from the State?

 

[Skylar]

For SKYLAR,, Actually If you do not agree with the position stated in original the post your answer would be "NO", and your defining reason for the lack of parallel ,or the tangent if that were your position, summary events would be the logical content of a post. Since I see only a monoplanic thought process, Have it as you will, and continue to define the idea by ONLY a singular line of inference and so bound plausible events, and ignore the other possible events, and the history that either has proved, or disproved your position.

I'm more than willing to discuss any topic I've brought up. But I have yet to 'admit' a thing about 'south carolina' or 'the civil war' or 'tariffs'.

If you'd like a conversation, why not approach me without your pre-set script. As I neither know the part you expect me to play nor have any interest in reading it. I'll stick with my own arguments.

 

[Centinel]

Okay, here's your answer: Because the state won't let them.

Applying your standard, what authority would the State have to stop them?

None, as far as I can see.

Thus, per you an individual citizen can secede from the State....can interpret the laws as they see fit? Can unilaterally declare that the laws don't apply to them?

And following your argument, the individual can secede from the United States as well, yes?

You asked me what authority the State would have to stop a person from exiting the political union into to which he had previously entered. And I said I can't see any such authority. Having exited, he has no standing to interpret the laws of the polity he left.

Nodding....and you've also said that the Principal can interpret the law as they see fit. Specifically, the States and the Constitution. Would this also apply to the individual? If they decide that say, tax laws don't apply to them because of their personal interpretation of the meaning of say, 'income', does that mean that they have no obligation to pay taxes?

If not, why not?

Good question. I don't think that any individual can dictate what a law means, but it seems reasonable that a group of people could exit their current political arrangement and establish their own form of self-government.

And just to clarify, can an individual secede from the United States as well? Or just from the State?

Thinking this through...If one were to secede from his state, it would seem that he would no longer be a member of the united states. He would be an independent sovereign nation.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Skylar I don't see how any of what you say negates the points I am making as well.
If anything we seem more on the same page than not, what you say backs up why I enforce consensus as the standard when it comes to issues of belief.

It seems the sticking point I find with you JakeStarkey C_Clayton_Jones and others who think more secular
is the issue of spiritual and political beliefs being of a different class of law than laws on purely secular issues.

The First Amendment specifically addresses Congress not establishing religion ie religiously biased laws;
and the problem is we have never publicly and Constitutionally address POLITICAL BELIEFS SPECIFICALLY in relation to
free exercise of religion and govt not establishing a faith based biased law that discriminates on the basis of CREED.

We have judicial precedence when it comes to lawsuits with atheists and Christians,
and with the Hobby Lobby case, this addressed beliefs in a way closer to what I am arguing needs to be resolved and not left to fight case by case.

People don't even agree on the Hobby Lobby ruling, so we need to pick that apart and accommodate the different views so
the govt isn't in the business of DECIDING these cases for people where BELIEFS are involved.
Similarly people did not agree with the court ruling on marriage equality which many argued is outside the jurisdiction of govt/courts to create and impose since this involves issues of faith, spiritual, and social beliefs about gender and marriage etc.

Skylar I understand that you, JakeStarkey and others
are perfectly fine leaving these belief issues to the decision of votes in Congress or ruling in Court
unless and until there is later legislative change if something is contested.

But as many people have equally valid beliefs this is NOT the jurisidiction of govt to decide FAITH BASED issues using
the same secular standard and process used for other cases of law or dispute. Religious beliefs are different because they
must be kept out of govt; Political beliefs are even more sensitive because they are held as personally as religious beliefs,
but political beliefs by their content cannot be separated from govt; that is why I recommend using consensus as the standard
or setting up ways through the states or parties where people CAN agree how to separate their political beliefs from each other.

I am one of those Constitutionalists who does not believe govt has authority to dictate political beliefs in cases of dispute,
but peoples' beliefs should be treated equally whether religious, political secular spiritual personal etc. When issues are
that sensitive where people cannot change their beliefs or be forced to compromise them by govt, I would hold that conflict
resolution and consensus can meet the standard on law necessary to ensure equal protection of all interests and prevent discrimination
on the basis of creed.

SEE more below, I don't disagree, in fact this is why I push for conflict resolution and mediation where govt is not designed to decide issues for people.

A.

The constitution as marriage analogy doesn't work for several reasons. First in a marriage, there's an overarching leviathan setting the rules. If you and your husband disagree on something when getting divorced, there's divorce court. Community Property laws, a judge, perhaps even a jury if it gets really ugly, can decide conflicts. In this arrangement, there would be none in Cent's estimation. Also in a marriage there are only two partners. So there would be an even 50-50 split on power. In the actual arrangement there are dozens of participants Third, there's no 'Principal-Agent' relationship in a marriage.

A. This is why I am saying the standard on decisions should be by CONSENSUS so it doesn't matter how many people are affected,
they all agree to the contract.
Again, this isn't necessary for EVERYTHING: People can agree to a 51/49 vote in order to agree a decision is fair; or 3/4 or 2/3.
IF THEY AGREE to those terms.

Skylar what is being missed here is that on issues of BELIEFS, people do NOT agree to give up their beliefs and consent
if the other side outnumbers them 51/49 or 5/4 or whatever.
With beliefs these are supposed to be protected 100% unless you are committing some crime or abuse with your beliefs endangering the rights of others.

When such an issue is contested, for example, back to the ACA mandates, this could be resolved by consensus if people AGREED to respect and include both sides' viewpoints instead of trying to EXCLUDE and overrule each other.

One side is arguing that the belief in free market health care, freedom and responsibility to pay for one's own costs while using charity or business programs to provide services for other people's needs and demands is NOT some abusive or neglectful choice that merits a tax penalty just because the person doesn't buy insurance as part of their plans to pay for themselves and their neighbors using free market choices of businesses, school programs, charitable nonprofits, etc.

Someone's belief would have to be causing harm and prove it is VIOLATING a law, freedom or right to justify penalty or punishment.
In the case of ACA mandates, the law CREATED a whole new rule that if you didn't comply then you face tax penalties,
but that rule DISCRIMINATED against people of free market beliefs and PENALIZES free market choices of paying for health care
when that isn't causing harm to pay for health care in other ways besides buying insurance!

Instead of trying to ignore, deny or invalidate people's beliefs on this,
why not include and answer those grievances? I think this will lead to a more amenable solution
that REPRESENTS more people's views values and beliefs instead of attempting to censor and exclude them from the democratic process.

B.

Lets compare it a more much analogous real world Principal-Agent relationship: the People creating a State. People start as individuals. They decide what they are going to do. And because of mutual advantage of working together in a society, they decide to make a State. This state would exercise their authority together. But since people disagree, how would they decide how the authority was to be weilded?

A relevant majority. When a sufficient majority agrees (could be 50% plus 1, could be a super majority of 2/3rds, could be 3/4s...whatever we agree), then this relevant majority has the authority to enact policy. Set speeding laws. Outlaw rape and murder. Collect taxes, etc. Once we've arranged ourselves into a State, then the Will of the Relevant Majority would be imposed on the individual. Lets say you like driving down the road at 100 mph, but the relevant majority outlaws it. They can enforce their laws within a State, enforce those laws with police, fine or arrest you for violating those laws, try you and punish you.

B. Yes, but again, issues of RELIGIOUS BELIEFS are not treated the same as laws and decisions that don't affect or involve people's beliefs.

For example, if a case went to court where Hindus and Muslims were fighting over a proposed ordinance either banning or promoting one or the other's prayer rituals at a public event, it is NOT the duty of court or govt to DECIDE between the two: should the Hindus get their prayers in the service or should the Muslims? The court might throw the whole thing out, saying NEITHER should be incorporated into the public service. I might add, unless they AGREE how to incorporate and include all people who want to be represented at that event.

Because the issue involves RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE of one group over another,
that is NOT something that people would agree to decide by either 51/49 vote or court ruling.
It would more likely get kicked out altogether since govt is not supposed to endorse or establish religion.

I am comparing other types of beliefs to this scenario
* beliefs in same sex marriage or traditional marriage only
* beliefs in govt health care as the natural default or free market health care as the natural default
* belief that govt can pass any laws unless specifically prohibited or limits vs. belief in limited govt that unspecified rights are reserved to the people or states as the default, and only IF the Constitution or Amendments grant SPECIFIC powers to federal govt, then it is assumed to be left to the people

C.

You as an individual can no longer do whatever you want. You're subject to the laws of the State, which is created by the WIll of the Relevant majority. Before there was a state, you could do what you want and there was no one to tell you otherwise. After there is a State, you can't. You are equally bound like all other citizens to the Will of the Relevant Majority. The State government, its police, its laws, its courts, would all be Agents of the Will of the Relevant Majority. And the Relevant Majority can tell its agent what to do.....by voting.

C. Yes Skylar and this includes the First Amendment part of the law prohibiting Congress from passing laws establishing a religious or faith based bias.
So this is why Constitutionalists are saying the laws WEREN'T followed,
and the people/States should first have VOTED on an Amendment AGREEING to grant expanded powers to federal govt to regulate health care and financial decisions/taxation on citizens BEFORE passing any legislation that ASSUMED federal govt had such capacity

D.

You, as an individual, couldn't unilaterally declare that say, the laws of the State don't apply to you. Or that your house is now its own country called 'Emilystan' and withdraw from the State. You, as an individual, lack that authority. The state doesn't belong to you personally. It belongs to the People. All of them. And the threshold of exercising power is the Relevant Majority. You don't get to decide what the laws are alone. An elected legislature does, voted in by the majority of the people.

D.
But that is what a block of people did who pushed the ACA bill that was BIASED BY POLITICAL BELIEFS TOWARDS THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT BELIEF IN HEALTH CARE AS A RIGHT THROUGH GOVT.

Obama, Pelosi and anyone else who backed this bill as "making the right to health care" the "law of the land" ***overrode*** Constitutional limits on federal govt NOT TO ESTABLISH A FAITH BASED LAW BIASED BY BELIEF.

They are of the POLITICAL BELIEF you pass a law first, then wait to see if it gets challenged or changed.

They EXCLUDED and DENIED equal inclusion and REPRESENTATION of half the nation with beliefs in FREE MARKET health care
as the natural default, not govt being the provider.

Note: Same can be said of people who lobbied for and passed DOMA. Same sex marriage is a belief, which should be protected equally under religious freedom. thus govt cannot be abused to either impose or ban this practice, since that's like regulating religious freedom. So whoever pushed that bill also was overriding Constitutional limits on govt that prohibit regulating religion.

E.

This arrangement isn't a 'marriage'. You can't unilaterally decide that the laws don't apply to you anymore and 'unenroll' from State authority. You can't seize State territory and declare it your own State. As the State wasn't created by you alone. It was created by The People. And you'd need a relevant majority of them to change the laws, change territory, etc.

These aren't decisions you can make alone.

E. Again Skylar I don't disagree with you, but point out the ACA mandates were passed
like "signing consumers names to a contract without our consent"

We WEREN'T parties to the negotiations as the corporate insurance interests lobbied to get paid in advance, and insisted on the individual mandate if THEY were going to agree to the terms.

The citizens stuck with mandates ordering regulations or fines on our personal finances
DIDN'T GET the same treatment and courtesy of hearing all our demands before writing and signing this bill and now enforcing it.

So whatever you said above isn't working,
I agree that is what WENT WRONG WITH ACA.

It's like a forced marriage: making one partner in the marriage contract
do things according to what the partner in charge of the contract wrote into it, where the choices are either
comply with a list of regulations or be fined for not choosing one of the given options.

And the other partner is protesting: why don't I get a say in this contract
since it involves my choices, my salary from my labor, and what kind of programs I want to support?

Again Skylar it seems you and others are assuming that health care and this new system of taxation and fines
"is just another area that govt is permitted to regulate"
but that is NOT in the Constitution and it is AGAINST THE BELIEFS OF HALF THE NATION if not more.

To half or more of the people, this legislation crosses the line into areas of
BELIEFS AND CREEDS that govt is NOT supposed to mandate, regulate, penalize or discriminate against.

And this bias is so deep, people cannot even see that it is infringing on others.

The free market people cannot see how the belief in govt health care is valid at all, so obstructing that
is NOT violating any valid beliefs that deserve protection. To them it is unconstitutional anyway and not right.

The right to health care people cannot see anything wrong with pushing that through govt, which seems natural to them,
and don't believe the opposite has any valid reason or belief to defend. So they don't see any violation either!

Skylar that is why I'm saying, even more so, we should separate these two tracks
and let people fund their own programs, similar to Hindus and Muslims, Protestants and Catholics,
so everyone's beliefs and free choice are protected equally.

I understand you do not see the health care issue as involving beliefs that should be treated equally as we would Hindus vs Muslims
or Protestants vs. Catholics.

The more I ask people about their beliefs on this, I find more and more the two sides really do have
distinct beliefs, and both should be treated represented and included equally in decisions on health care policy, and how to finance it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Applying your standard, what authority would the State have to stop them?

None, as far as I can see.

Thus, per you an individual citizen can secede from the State....can interpret the laws as they see fit? Can unilaterally declare that the laws don't apply to them?

And following your argument, the individual can secede from the United States as well, yes?

You asked me what authority the State would have to stop a person from exiting the political union into to which he had previously entered. And I said I can't see any such authority. Having exited, he has no standing to interpret the laws of the polity he left.

Nodding....and you've also said that the Principal can interpret the law as they see fit. Specifically, the States and the Constitution. Would this also apply to the individual? If they decide that say, tax laws don't apply to them because of their personal interpretation of the meaning of say, 'income', does that mean that they have no obligation to pay taxes?

If not, why not?

Good question. I don't think that any individual can dictate what a law means, but it seems reasonable that a group of people could exit their current political arrangement and establish their own form of self-government.

And just to clarify, can an individual secede from the United States as well? Or just from the State?

Thinking this through...If one were to secede from his state, it would seem that he would no longer be a member of the united states. He would be an independent sovereign nation.

Dear Centinel I thought of a way we don't need to secede from either states or federal govt.
If we organize all these conflicting social agenda/programs through PARTY, then we don't
have to fight through States or Federal govt to have large collective programs on a statewide or national level.

The parties already organize their membership and financial support base on both a local, state and national level.

Why not shift contested social programs there, for parties to handle at the appropriate levels of local, state or national
policy for their own members, similar to their platforms voted on by just their members. So they can get what they want.

Benefits for same sex couples can be managed that way, gay marriages, programs such as Planned Parenthood that are prochoice, stem cell research or right to die policies; etc.

For the conservatives, they can have prayers and creation taught in schools, spiritual healing to cure cancer instead of pushing medical marijuana, prolife programs and charity or microlending to replace welfare where recipients can be required not to be on drugs and/or be receiving counseling etc.

Only programs that all parties agree to fund would remain public.
For the rest, the parties can manage a tax system where people who pay into the preapproved programs get that deducted from taxes, so they can make sure they pay for what they believe in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If we do it the way that Emily suggests immediately above (by party), then we have party government integration similar to fascism and communism.

 

[Skylar]

Applying your standard, what authority would the State have to stop them?

None, as far as I can see.

Thus, per you an individual citizen can secede from the State....can interpret the laws as they see fit? Can unilaterally declare that the laws don't apply to them?

And following your argument, the individual can secede from the United States as well, yes?

You asked me what authority the State would have to stop a person from exiting the political union into to which he had previously entered. And I said I can't see any such authority. Having exited, he has no standing to interpret the laws of the polity he left.

Nodding....and you've also said that the Principal can interpret the law as they see fit. Specifically, the States and the Constitution. Would this also apply to the individual? If they decide that say, tax laws don't apply to them because of their personal interpretation of the meaning of say, 'income', does that mean that they have no obligation to pay taxes?

If not, why not?

Good question. I don't think that any individual can dictate what a law means, but it seems reasonable that a group of people could exit their current political arrangement and establish their own form of self-government.

Then your claims about the principal/agent relationship don't work when applied to an individual citizen and the State. That's quite the logical break.

Where Madison's conception works in both instances. That's quite the consistent logic on Madison's part.

And if a group of people got together, then does it work? Can you form a tribunal in your own livingroom of your drinking buddies that's as authoritative in interpreting the constitution as your State or the Federal Government?

If not, why not?

And just to clarify, can an individual secede from the United States as well? Or just from the State?

Thinking this through...If one were to secede from his state, it would seem that he would no longer be a member of the united states. He would be an independent sovereign nation.

Why then has this never been reflected in law in our entire nation's history? Both individual's secession from the State and the individual's secession of the United States?

See, in addition to the all the contradictions of your argument, Madison shredding the entire concept, the logical inconsistencies of your conception of the Principal/Agent relationship and contradiction by the Founders themselves....

......your argument fails the Sanity Test. Not a pejorative one, the scientific version. When applied to the real world, your argument has always, always broken.

Then there's Occam's Razor. What are the odds that in more than 2 centuries your 'valid' legal arguments have never been recognized by the law or the courts, that you just happen to know the constitution better than James Madison and Alexander Hamilton?

I'd argue is far more likely that you're simply wrong. Its simpler and matches the evidence far better than your theory.

 

[Skylar]

Dear Skylar I don't see how any of what you say negates the points I am making as well.
If anything we seem more on the same page than not, what you say backs up why I enforce consensus as the standard when it comes to issues of belief.

Consensus of the relevant majority, sure. But that's not what you're arguing.

It seems the sticking point I find with you JakeStarkey C_Clayton_Jones and others who think more secular
is the issue of spiritual and political beliefs being of a different class of law than laws on purely secular issues.

The First Amendment specifically addresses Congress not establishing religion ie religiously biased laws;
and the problem is we have never publicly and Constitutionally address POLITICAL BELIEFS SPECIFICALLY in relation to
free exercise of religion and govt not establishing a faith based biased law that discriminates on the basis of CREED.

We have judicial precedence when it comes to lawsuits with atheists and Christians,
and with the Hobby Lobby case, this addressed beliefs in a way closer to what I am arguing needs to be resolved and not left to fight case by case.

People don't even agree on the Hobby Lobby ruling, so we need to pick that apart and accommodate the different views so
the govt isn't in the business of DECIDING these cases for people where BELIEFS are involved.

Where did you get the idea that no law can ever contradict your belief?

I understand your argument. Its simply not the case in our law. Its entirely possible to have laws that you disagree with.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily is an agent of the principle of 'reconciliation'.

 

[Skylar]

Emily is an agent of the principle of 'reconciliation'.

I respect her sentiment. Its actually a noble idea.

But its not necessarily a constitutional one.

 

[Centinel]

None, as far as I can see.

Thus, per you an individual citizen can secede from the State....can interpret the laws as they see fit? Can unilaterally declare that the laws don't apply to them?

And following your argument, the individual can secede from the United States as well, yes?

You asked me what authority the State would have to stop a person from exiting the political union into to which he had previously entered. And I said I can't see any such authority. Having exited, he has no standing to interpret the laws of the polity he left.

Nodding....and you've also said that the Principal can interpret the law as they see fit. Specifically, the States and the Constitution. Would this also apply to the individual? If they decide that say, tax laws don't apply to them because of their personal interpretation of the meaning of say, 'income', does that mean that they have no obligation to pay taxes?

If not, why not?

Good question. I don't think that any individual can dictate what a law means, but it seems reasonable that a group of people could exit their current political arrangement and establish their own form of self-government.

Then your claims about the principal/agent relationship don't work when applied to an individual citizen and the State. That's quite the logical break.

Where Madison's conception works in both instances. That's quite the consistent logic on Madison's part.

And if a group of people got together, then does it work? Can you form a tribunal in your own livingroom of your drinking buddies that's as authoritative in interpreting the constitution as your State or the Federal Government?

If not, why not?

And just to clarify, can an individual secede from the United States as well? Or just from the State?

Thinking this through...If one were to secede from his state, it would seem that he would no longer be a member of the united states. He would be an independent sovereign nation.

Why then has this never been reflected in law in our entire nation's history? Both individual's secession from the State and the individual's secession of the United States?

See, in addition to the all the contradictions of your argument, Madison shredding the entire concept, the logical inconsistencies of your conception of the Principal/Agent relationship and contradiction by the Founders themselves....

......your argument fails the Sanity Test. Not a pejorative one, the scientific version. When applied to the real world, your argument has always, always broken.

Then there's Occam's Razor. What are the odds that in more than 2 centuries your 'valid' legal arguments have never been recognized by the law or the courts, that you just happen to know the constitution better than James Madison and Alexander Hamilton?

I'd argue is far more likely that you're simply wrong. Its simpler and matches the evidence far better than your theory.

My argument is this: A state exiting the union wouldn't require a change to the compact by the principals. The principals (the several states) already wrote their compact to allow a state to leave. Thus, there's no constitutional prohibition on a state doing so. Can you find any language forbidding it?