This is where Emily's premise fails: "where is his ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that his health care bill passed "in the name of the law" violates the law, and by the party of choice and inclusion, instead "excludes free choice."
The law passed by the guidance of how we make laws under the Constitution.
That you dislike the law does not make it illegitimate.
Dear
JakeStarkey and what you miss is the entire premise of the law
was already out of bound.
Even when laws were put through the prescribed process to
pass the "Defense of Marriage Act" the CONTENT of the law was unconstitutional.
So that should NEVER have passed, and to do so violated laws by abusing Govt this way.
It is NOT okay to commit robbery and then wait until after you get caught
and it gets charged and convicted in court to "prove" a crime was committed.
the crime was committed when it was FIRST DONE not when it is proven in court afterwards.
That's what is wrong with our system.
So rape and abuse can be prevented if we listen when people say NO.
We don't have to commit crimes by not realizing we are violating someone's consent and beliefs.
In the case of ACA mandates, there WERE beliefs being run over and these were ignored.
The objections were made, but were deliberately CHOSEN to be overruled by using the system.
The dissent was bypassed by doing things like
* presenting the bill as a "not a tax" so that it wasn't blocked but could get through Congress and have to
get to the Courts to check that decision
* but when it got to Courts, the winning argument was that it WAS a tax, but that's not how it passed through Congress
So the system of checks and balances was bypassed there
Also these beliefs were treated as expendable:
* belief that federal govt had no capacity to create this exchange and tax system because
of Amendment 10, and requires a Constitutional Amendment first
* belief by First and Fourteenth Amendment in people's liberties and state rights
even IF people don't believe in the other arguments.
So even IF people don't agree on political beliefs, then these beliefs
should be treated EQUALLY and not impose one or the other by laws.
What you showed me
JakeStarkey is the same reason the pro-ACA side DEPENDS on govt
to tell them how to interpret law, this side does NOT have the ability to see or say the above argument.
This argument comes from the pro-liberty belief that people consent first, and then govt reflects that
and cannot impose on their BELIEFS or creed without CONSENT.
So you cannot even see the argument I am making because your beliefs preclude it.
That's how serious this conflict is.
It is like explaining the right to have colors to someone who is black/white color blind
and doesn't see that any choices, beliefs or freedom are lost by passing a law in black/white.
the whole process was flawed to begin with because
one side believed that Govt does have the right to pass a law like that in that format and procedures as used
and the other side protested from the start that federal govt cannot be used that way
but must have CONSENT of the people to do so, not just "majority rule vote to decide by Congress and Courts"
The freedom of the people to choose how to provide and pay for health care
is NOT the jurisdiction of the Congress and Courts to make except by CONSENSUS
because PERSONAL beliefs are involved that are not the role of govt.
and when this got put through govt, then these personal beliefs became political beliefs.
so that's even harder to separate once they've been injected into govt laws.
Like forcing a woman to have sex and a baby though she said NO I don't consent,
but not only is the sex forced on her, but once she is pregnant
then you are forcing her either to "go through abortion" or "go through child labor,"
when she never consented to sex or pregnancy in the first place.
The consent was never there to begin with
so the whole process was coerced and not by consent of the people affected by the policy.
No amount of saying the elected people did it and the vote was counted
and the court approved it. If the woman said NO the whole time, it isn't a consensual contract
and not binding. But once the woman is pregnant, then you put the burden on her to deal with that
which she objected to the whole time, but wasn't counted. Only the man pushing for the sex and baby counted.
The two sides in the interaction were not considered equally, where the woman did not even WANT the relationship
in the first place, much less the forced sex, pregnancy with the baby.
