emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Starting a new thread, after replies to ummmmmm on another thread branched off from age of consent/marriage to consent of taxpayers and beliefs about marriage and social benefits attached.
Please see below reply for the longer Post.
Here is the shorter post summarizing the new topic:
=========
Since the thread was supposed to be about minors getting married, not social benefits attached to marriage, I could repost my last comments and start a thread for how could parties be used to separate beliefs about marriage and benefits from govt.
"I could see either parties managing cooperative benefits per precinct and collectively statewide or nationwide
Or splitting federal govt into two administrations for domestic/internal social policies between people and states vs. External duties that focus on national security, interstate commerce, and physical not personal matters the other admin addresses."
Let me start a new thread. Thanks ummmmmm
How this relates to CONSTITUTIONALISM:
States could mediate policies with their own citizens per district, and not necessarily impose mandates for the entire state or nation.
So if populations disagree on beliefs, either within their own states such as parties divided 50/50 over abortion or vaccine mandates, the parties can democratize health care per precinct or district to represent taxpayer choice; and still allow govt policy where all residents and voters agree universally.
In any case, to protect consent of taxpayers voters and residents from abuse of political power for coercion, exclusion, discrimination or oppression I recommend teaching conflict resolution and peer mediation in schools as standard civics education. As well as offering assistance with mediation and redressing grievances through party precincts or electoral college districts so all people and parties are represented in public policy.
This would allow earlier detection, intervention, prevention and correction of any abuses of collective authority, entities or resources that otherwise violate Constitutional protections and Civil Rights.
Please see below reply for the longer Post.
Here is the shorter post summarizing the new topic:
=========
Since the thread was supposed to be about minors getting married, not social benefits attached to marriage, I could repost my last comments and start a thread for how could parties be used to separate beliefs about marriage and benefits from govt.
"I could see either parties managing cooperative benefits per precinct and collectively statewide or nationwide
Or splitting federal govt into two administrations for domestic/internal social policies between people and states vs. External duties that focus on national security, interstate commerce, and physical not personal matters the other admin addresses."
Let me start a new thread. Thanks ummmmmm
How this relates to CONSTITUTIONALISM:
States could mediate policies with their own citizens per district, and not necessarily impose mandates for the entire state or nation.
So if populations disagree on beliefs, either within their own states such as parties divided 50/50 over abortion or vaccine mandates, the parties can democratize health care per precinct or district to represent taxpayer choice; and still allow govt policy where all residents and voters agree universally.
In any case, to protect consent of taxpayers voters and residents from abuse of political power for coercion, exclusion, discrimination or oppression I recommend teaching conflict resolution and peer mediation in schools as standard civics education. As well as offering assistance with mediation and redressing grievances through party precincts or electoral college districts so all people and parties are represented in public policy.
This would allow earlier detection, intervention, prevention and correction of any abuses of collective authority, entities or resources that otherwise violate Constitutional protections and Civil Rights.
Last edited: