emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
So you'd have to register with the government as a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Catholic, or a Communist, or a Trade Unionist?Surely the job of the SCOTUS is determining whether a law is constitutional or not.idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!
this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.
A government can pass a law for whatever reason...political or religious...but if it isn't a correct law according to the Constitution it won't be allowed.
Surely that's the mechanism that's supposed top prevent poor laws based on ideology being made.
I'm taking it a step further:
if we KNOW political or religious beliefs are involved
such as DOMA and right to marriage, and we know people's beliefs don't agre e,
we should already know that making a law one side objects to is
ALREADY BIASED and going to be challenged.
Do we really ne ed to pass it first and fight through courts to do that?
THAT WASTE TAXPAYER MONEY
and in the meantime, if a law stands until it is changed,
THAT LAW IS PROHIBITING OR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ONE SIDE.
So I would say NO it is NOT constitutional to pass a law
that people KNOW is abridging the beliefs of one by favoring the other!
That's unethical, wasteful, and/or negligent if people don't have the
judgment to see why this is unconstitutional.
HYPOTHETICALLY
YES govt could make or pass any law through the system.
But if this is deliberately over the objections of people of a different or opposing cre ed,
I argue that is ABUSIVE and NOT constitutional.
If a whole PARTY "conspires" to push a bill against the beliefs of others,
I even hold that as gross negligence or "conspiring to violate
equal civil rights of other people"
So I would argue AGAINST such a wasteful abusive practice,
and yes I do believe it causes damage and harm, not just
financially but destroys relations and faith in govt integrity and NEUTRALITY.
See www.ethics-commission.net
govt officials are NOT supposed to put party or
[personal interests before govt duty to protect equal interests
of ALL people of ALL beliefs, REGARDLESS of party affiliation
(or I argue that's discirmination by creed and
conspiring to violate equal civil rights and protections under law)
Now, you or anyone here do NOT have to agree to my beliefs
for them to be valid. If I had LOWER standards than govt,
then following my beliefs might be unlawful in conflict with govt.
By my standards are HIGHER than what govt permits.
So if anything it's MY beliefs in consensus that are violated
when govt can be abused to "override beliefs" of people
that I consider against my Constitutional beliefs about govt ethics.
So, just to take an example, you'd have no problem allowing Muslims the right of veto on any new laws that are proposed?
idb
Anything Muslims could do illegal are already illegal if you are talking about civil or criminal abuses.
What I MIGHT propose to ad d into law,
not just for Muslims, but ANY collective entity whether religious or political
nonprofit or business corporation, educational, charity, even media as a COMPANY (not the content),
is require states to license these corporations under the condition
they respect the same equal protections of rights as under the Bill of Rights
and 14th Amendment. ie hold Corporations to the same standards
we use to prevent govt abuses as a form of "collective authority"
So NONE of these type of corporations can abuse
their "collective" influence, authority or resources to VIOLATE individual
civil rights including due process and right to petition for redress of grievances.
They'd all have to pledge to respect equal protections and have a process
for resolving conflicts so no complaints or grievances are obstructed.
If we cut down on religious or political abuses by ALL groups,
then the nonsense with corporate interests skewing legislation,
or religious groups abusing individuals would all have to be addressed equally.
Not just targeting Muslims, or Catholic priests, or political parties,
but NO collective abuse would be allowed to go without check!
Would you have to wear an identifying badge of some sort?
I'm sure that's never been tried before - ever...hmmm...what could possibly go wrong?
Hey...maybe if you were a member of The Party you could get away without having to wear a badge!
Hi idb, no only if your organization requires you to register, such as for health care or marriage benefits, just like joining an insurance group plan, etc. if some group WANTS to assume ALL legal and financial responsibility for members without requirements, that might be possible but that sounds like a bad idea.
the city of Galveston has its own SS,
and the Mormons have a temp 2 year program for helping their own members.
With parties, yes they may have rules for elected reps to register.
If there are tax policies made by groups, such as health care dollars being divided by party, then each party would vote on their agreed rules and terms for participating, like running your own IRA or "health care accounts" through a collective membership.
This would teach those groups or parties how to manage their own members and resources, which is good training and experience if you are going to understand and make govt policy on social programs.
The unions already have their rules for registering and membership.
So this isn't anything new, but just adding requirements on teaching and assisting with due process in case of conflicts so nobody's individual rights or freedoms get abridged by other individuals, higher authority, or the collective group dominating them.
Each organization has bylaws, such as nonprofits required to have boards and recorded board minutes.
so just add into the organizational requirements there must be a system of redressing grievances so that due process and equal protection is enforced for all members, and any threat of abuse of collective authority can be resolved. And have all board and members sign an agreement to respect those rules for all members, and report and resolve an complaints of abuse or conflicts, etc.
Each group can write up their own terms and conditions for their members.
the part the state enforces is the groups can't enforce or construe rules so as to violate equal protections of civil rights and due process.
right now, parties DO violate the rights of others by abusing collective influence and resource to push their party reps who are elected to office to ENACT and enforce laws that are biased beliefs against the beliefs of others.
So I propose we institute agreements
within and between groups to stop such religious and political abuse.
Thanks idb
I hope we see this come about between the major parties still struggling to reorganize their positions after this unpredictable shake up in govt and media.