"
I find that giving the Supreme Court or any judge "power" to rule or impose an interpretation without consent or check by the people is *too easily abused." -- Exactly what Chief Justice Roberts said was the Court's reasoning and justification based on principle and precedent, in his ruling that the Court use the Obama administrations' second argument in upholding the mandated 'shared penalty responsibility'
You obviously have NOT read Roberts' ruling
[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] [MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION]
Dear Dante:
Let us separate the two arguments that I am making
(A) First is by the "spirit of the law" -- the whole spirit of the Constitutional contract is CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. So if people dissent, there is an inalienable right of the people to redress grievances. The democratic "due process" necessary to resolve conflicts should be protected and facilitated by govt NOT BLOCKED BY PARTY POLITICS to the point of endangering constitutional liberties. My argument is that the Supreme Court and judges/courts in general have too much power to rule and not enough check, and there has been NO protection of equal interests or equal justice under law AS LONG AS ONE SIDE OR ONE VIEW CAN RULE OVER OTHERS (justified by the letter of the law or not). Once you violate consent, that is no longer consent of the governed or representation of those interests. Free and equal access to the political/legal process has long been compromised by financial interests and bullying by coercion or exclusion; this is a separate issue indirectly tied with any other that comes up.
This is a whole area of conflict that would require either (1) mediating every case and conflict by consensus (as the Greens practice) so "bullying" or obstructionism is NOT rewarded but solutions agreed upon by all sides/interests; (2) agreeing to separate funding/jurisdiction so that all interests are protected, and responsibility is relegated respectively to the people/parties of different views.
So that is my spirit of the law argument which is separate
(B) for the "letter of the law" issue regarding Roberts' ruling and the Supreme Court,
from what I understand
(1) the ACA was passed through Congress as a reform of a previous public health bill. It was NOT passed as a revenue bill dealing with income tax
(2) Roberts originally wrote a dissenting opinion and was opposed to the ACA as unconstitutional. After either pressure from the Administration pushing the ACA, and/or some excuse he gave that he "didn't want to oppose where it appeared to be political" he reversed his opposition and supported the ACA as constitutional. The argument was that it WAS constitutional as "tax"
So there was some switch that when the bill was passed through Congress it was NOT a tax, but when it was defended before the Supreme Court it was argued as a "tax."
There is even a federal lawsuit based on this issue, that if it was confirmed by the Supreme Court as constitutional as a tax, then the bill was NOT constitutionally passed through Congress as a tax.
Dante in either case, the arguments around (B) indicate that criteria (A) WAS NOT MET.
WE WOULD NOT HAVE THESE ARGUMENTS OVER ACA IF IT REPRESENTED CONSENT OF ALL THE PEOPLE/TAXPAYERS AFFECTED BY THIS BILL.
The simplest solution would be to hold the supporters of ACA to THEIR OWN CONTRACT WITH GOVT. And allow other people of dissenting political beliefs to represent their own contracts regarding health care as well.
Where ALL PARTIES agree, then THAT PART can be made federal law.
Otherwise, SEPARATE OUT PRIVATELY. By respect for First Amendment religious freedom; Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection of the laws and no discrimination by govt against people for their beliefs; and respect for Tenth Amendment rights reserved to the people and the states.
Those who support ACA may choose to be under those mandated policies by organizing by PARTY such as through the Greens and Democrats who WANT single payer. Set up a semi-governmental network, similar to the Federal Reserve that is a mix of public and private interests, but make it OPTIONAL. Where ONLY people/members who WANT benefits through that system are REQUIRED to pay into it under the rules set forth by their representatives.
Thank you Dante
If you can understand either part of both of these arguments, I have nothing but respect for you. if you keep projecting your own beliefs on others, you are part of the problem. So any circular arguments you inject yourself into will go round and round in circles, spinning you with them.
This way i propose allows for all the conflicting views to coexist peacefully without imposing on each other. May all the enlightened people who believe in free choice and constitutional protections and limitations on federal government be united in their diversity, and work together to create amicable solutions by separating by parties to organize resources around solutions they believe in, and stop wasting time and resources fighting each other's ways of reform.
Why can't we reward citizens for setting up their own reforms and quit imposing one way?
How can activists and rejectionists lobby so hard against "religious groups" for imposing their views and biases on public policy and govt,
and yet NOT SEE how lobbyists in this case are pushing THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS AND AGENDA on the public similar to a religious cult?
How is the partisan push for ACA different from a religious-based imposition on dissenters of opposing beliefs?
