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



## emilynghiem (Jan 20, 2016)

Dear [Constitutional Lawyer in Houston]:
You were referred to me by an advocate with the Texas Constitution Party.
I have been asking Christians and Constitutionalists who oppose ACA mandates
for help to organize either a petition, lawsuit or Constitutional conference. 
I want to address what I and many others consider to be an unconstitutional overreach of federal govt
to pass and enforce ACA as law, including a tax penalty for not buying private insurance,
without first voting on any kind of AMENDMENT to the US Constitution authorizing federal govt in this area
of health care decisions and financial management reaching into the private sector.

I would like to organize a team of Constitutional lawyers willing to moderate
input from activists from BOTH the Democratic left AND the Republican right
who oppose this ACA bill and mandates forcing citizens to pay corporate insurance 
clearly benefiting at the expense of taxpayers who have no representation.

As long as the two sides don't agree what to change the ACA mandates to,
it appears candidates are deadlocked and the policy remains as is, so taxpayers continue to
be penalized and deprived of liberty without due process of law.

I am arguing that the regulations and penalties
"discriminate on the basis of creed" in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
if not the Tenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.

The belief in "right to health care" is not treated equally as a political belief
as the belief in "right to life" so I believe the Right to Life advocates have grounds to sue the
Democratic Party leaders who pushed this "right to health care" belief through federal laws
but have discriminated in blocking "right to life" beliefs arguing for "separation of church and state."

It is a discriminatory practice NOT to apply the "separation of church and state"
EQUALLY to the "right to health care" beliefs, while penalizing the "free market beliefs"
as not equally protected either.

The federal exemptions under ACA that specify which religious affiliations count as exemptions
are essentially "regulating on the basis of religion or creed"; while those who believe in
"the right to health care through govt" are not as affected as those who believe in free market
health care, where forced compliance with the mandates violates Constitutional beliefs held by half the nation. 

I would like to ask you and other Constitutional lawyers and law firms to
consult on organizing a conference on "political beliefs"
to see if the people on all side concerned about ACA -- and threats of discrimination
against prochoice and prolife beliefs, beliefs in free market and right to health care, etc. -- 
can agree to respect each other's political beliefs, and either ask, demand, petition or SUE both parties to respect beliefs EQUALLY and agree to QUIT imposing biased
laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by establishing one belief while excluding or penalizing another.

On the issues of political beliefs, I argue these should be treated equally as religious beliefs,
or it is a form of discrimination by creed. If only people with secular beliefs get to use govt
to establish theirs, but people with religious beliefs are barred, that is discrimination by creed.

I hold that because political beliefs cannot be separated from govt as religious beliefs are required,
then CONSENSUS is necessary on laws or decisions that touch on political beliefs 
to prevent such discrimination and to ensure that all people are protected equally, regardless.

Thus, I find it unconstitutional for govt to pass laws, much less enforce them,
where one side's political beliefs are established publicly and required for all citizens to comply with,
while people of dissenting beliefs are excluded, penalized or otherwise discriminated against by govt.

I believe this unconstitutional infringement has already occurred,
and should be corrected as soon as possible to cap any further damages already imposed.

I believe in equal respect, justice and protection  under law for all people, regardless of creed or belief.

I am distressed that nobody has successfully stopped or corrected the unconstitutional
problems under the ACA mandates,
and in the meantime my liberties, rights and freedom have been
deprived and denied without any due process of law to prove that 
a crime or violation was committed deserving of restricted freedom.

I see no reason to penalize taxpayers who believe in free market approaches
to affordable, sustainable, cost effective and ethical health care provisions
that would be consistent with constitutional ethics, standards, principles and process,
unlike the ACA mandates that I find to be in violation on many levels.

Nobody seems to be challenging this on the grounds of political beliefs.

Given the strong legal community we have in Houston, 
could we bring together leaders on both sides of the health care issue
and address how to handle the political beliefs of
* freedom of choice and right to health care
* free market health care and right to life
Where the parties and federal officials can be asked, petitioned or sued
to respect and protect these beliefs equally.

My question is
* is the First Amendment clause on religious freedom and
the language in the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights laws on 
equal protection from discrimination by creed
SUFFICIENT language to protect political beliefs from either
-- imposition and establishment by govt similar to religious beliefs
-- denial, exclusion, discrimination and/or penalty
* or do we need to pass ADDITIONAL legislation or
clarifying amendments to address POLITICAL BELIEFS
so that people are protected equally and not
discriminated against if one party's votes outnumber the other party,
and cause legislation or rulings to be passed FAVORING one party's beliefs while excluding the other's beliefs.

I would like to ask the help of other Constitutionalists
to lay out these points and issues, and to ask to organize
a Constitutional conference to decide if Amendments are needed
or just an agreement to RESPECT political beliefs under "religion" and "creed"
where no changes are needed to the current wording of our Constitutional laws.

Do we NEED to specify that consensus is required to establish 
laws or rulings through govt that touch on beliefs or creeds?
So that majority rule is never abused to force a biased faith-based
law that violates the equal freedom and protection of others.

The right to marriage and marriage equality issues also brought
up the issue of beliefs (where I believe consensus is necessary
on public laws, or else an agree to remove the conflicting policy
from govt and keep it private practice through religious freedom left unregulated by govt).

If you or other lawyers you recommend might be interested
in calling a Constitutional conference on this issue, I believe
it will be beneficial in resolving conflicts between beliefs on health care
and marriage laws, as well as other areas from gun rights, voting rights,
immigration rights, the death penalty and abortion, all of which involve
deeply held beliefs that people are not willing to compromise by majority rule.

I believe consensus is necessary in such cases where beliefs cannot be changed by govt.

Thank you very much.

I hope I may find leaders in Constitutional law and govt reform
willing to address these issues, and open the door for the rest
of the nation to follow suit.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem, Constitutionalist
Democratic Precinct 30, Freedmen's Town
713-820-5130
ethics-commission.net
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
Isonomy
emilynghiem@hotmail.com


----------



## Skylar (Jan 21, 2016)

Yeah, beliefs don't hold some hallowed status that places them above the law.

I've always found your fixation on this issue to be.....bizarre.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 21, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Yeah, beliefs don't hold some hallowed status that places them above the law.
> 
> I've always found your fixation on this issue to be.....bizarre.


 
Hi Skylar so why doesn't that hold for "belief in health care as a right" and "belief in marriage equality" ?
Why are THESE beliefs "placed above the law"
placed ABOVE "separation of church and state"
mandated AGAINST "freedom of choice"

Why the double standard, then, Skylar

Would you like to enter the Bullring and tell me why
secular political beliefs are treated unequally as religious beliefs,
and why they AREN'T being all held in check equally under Constitutional laws?

Thanks Skylar it's a good point and that is EXACTLY why I am asking
about treating creeds equally and keeping them OUT OF GOVT (except where people agree on policy and no one is discriminated against)


----------



## Skylar (Jan 21, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, beliefs don't hold some hallowed status that places them above the law.
> ...



You can believe whatever you want. But that doesn't place your beliefs above the law. Or mandate that the law represent your beliefs. 



> Would you like to enter the Bullring and tell me why
> secular political beliefs are treated unequally as religious beliefs,
> and why they AREN'T being all held in check equally under Constitutional laws?



I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for. The right to express a belief? That's free speech. The right to hold a belief? That's legal. 

How then are 'secular beliefs' treated unequally with religious beliefs?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 21, 2016)

Skylar said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



(1) Right, Skylar I am NOT saying to put anyone's beliefs above the law
but to protect ALL beliefs and creeds equally under the law from either
infringement, imposition, or discrimination by govt.

(2) 
How then are 'secular beliefs' treated unequally with religious beliefs?

EX 1: when right to life advocates want to pass a law biased by their beliefs,
this gets struck down by "separation of church and state"
even SYMBOLS that aren't imposing or forcing anyone (like a cross or a Bible,
and now Christmas trees and nativity scenes) lead to lawsuits to REMOVE these from public arenas.

However, this standard is NOT held for
* the beliefs in health care as a right, that was equally opposed by those who aren't represented by this belief
but are now held to tax penalties and fines over this issue
* the beliefs in marriage equality for same sex couples
which was pushed through the govt, even though the beliefs in traditional marriage are struck down
as "violating separation of church and state"
BOTH are beliefs and should be treated equally, not favoring one through govt while striking down the other
* beliefs about gender and orientation that are "faith based"
 are supported by laws favoring one sides' beliefs instead of
treating both sides equally since this area remains "faith based"

Unless gender is proven genetically, it is faithbased and same with orientation.

Those are key issues that have come up recently.

To treat prochoice and prolife equally as beliefs, the free choice is the default
that allows BOTH groups to "fund their own programs and keep them out of govt"

It has been ruled a constitutional violation to force prolife people to pay for abortions or abortifacients against their beliefs.

The same should apply to right to health care and free market choices.
in that case again the free market is the default option that
allows BOTH groups to "fund their own programs and keep them out of govt"

So instead of forcing the govt health care on the free market believers,
free market should remain the default (similar to how prochoice is the default that still allows prolife to operate)

But this is not what is being enforced.
The ACA mandates that force govt managed health regulations and requirements
is being IMPOSED on opponents who believe in free market solutions to sustainable health care.
So the people who don't comply face FINES AND PENALTIES that go into this system against those beliefs.

That is discrimination.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 21, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Get specific. How are beliefs being 'infringed, imposed, or discriminated against' by government? 



> (2)
> How then are 'secular beliefs' treated unequally with religious beliefs?
> 
> EX 1: when right to life advocates want to pass a law biased by their beliefs,
> ...


When a right to life advocate wants to pass a law based on their belief....they run into the individual's right to privacy. 

So your example doesn't work. As its based on a false premise. 



> However, this standard is NOT held for
> * the beliefs in health care as a right, that was equally opposed by those who aren't represented by this belief
> but are now held to tax penalties and fines over this issue
> * the beliefs in marriage equality for same sex couples
> ...



How are they not being treated equally? 

And beliefs in traditional marriage weren't 'struck down'. Laws that prohibited same sex marriage were struck down as violating individual rights. 

Again, your premise is simply not accurate. A belief and a law are not the same thing. You can hold the belief that traditional marriage is the only marriage. You can't pass a law that violates the rights of other people. 

Do you see the distinction?


----------



## regent (Jan 23, 2016)

The Constitution is what the Court say it is, said Justice Holmes.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 23, 2016)

regent said:


> The Constitution is what the Court say it is, said Justice Holmes.



The states wrote the constitution. The federal government is a result of the compact they established between themselves. The states are the principals and the fed gov is their agent. The states are the authority on what their compact means.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 23, 2016)

Centinel said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution is what the Court say it is, said Justice Holmes.
> ...



Save that the 14th amendment specifically grants the federal government the authority to prevent the States from violating the rights of federal citizens. 

With the founders recognizing that the federal judiciary as the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 23, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Save that the 14th amendment specifically grants the federal government the authority to prevent the States from violating the rights of federal citizens.
> 
> With the founders recognizing that the federal judiciary as the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.



Yes, since the establishment of the constitution, the states have amended the agreement between themselves by adding the 14th (and other) amendments. Yet the federal government continues to be their agent, and they continue to the the authority on what they meant when they established their compact between themselves.

Remember, the states are parties to the compact they made between themselves. The federal government is not a party to this compact. The federal government is the creature of this compact, and is the creation and servant of the states.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 23, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Save that the 14th amendment specifically grants the federal government the authority to prevent the States from violating the rights of federal citizens.
> ...



And they do. Its called the amendment process, which the States can initiate and pass unilaterally. However, if an individual state wants to violate the rights of Federal Citizens, its going to be checked by the Federal Judiciary.

And frankly, should be. 



> Remember, the states are parties to the compact they made between themselves. The federal government is not a party to this compact. The federal government is the creature of this compact, and is the creation and servant of the states.


A better analogy would be Concurrent Sovereigns. As the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction over its own territory and property. While sharing concurrent jurisdiction with every State. And was set by the founders as the arbiters of the meaning of the constitution through the federal judiciary.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 23, 2016)

Skylar said:


> A better analogy would be Concurrent Sovereigns. As the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction over its own territory and property. While sharing concurrent jurisdiction with every State. And was set by the founders as the arbiters of the meaning of the constitution through the federal judiciary.



That would be incorrect. It is the states are are sovereign. Delegates from the states met and they established a compact between themselves, which they each ratified. The federal government is the result of these sovereign states forming their compact. It did not exist previously, as the sovereign states did. It is a result of their agreement. Without them, it would not exist.

When the states wrote their constitution, they did not include language making the federal government the arbiter of the meaning of their compact.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 23, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > A better analogy would be Concurrent Sovereigns. As the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction over its own territory and property. While sharing concurrent jurisdiction with every State. And was set by the founders as the arbiters of the meaning of the constitution through the federal judiciary.
> ...



Then how do you explain the exclusive jurisdiction over federal terrritories and property possessed by the Federal government? Or the federal government's jurisdiction within all State territory?

The former speaking to the Federal government's sovereignty. And the latter speaking to the sharing of authority over the territory of the States. 



> Delegates from the states met and they established a compact between themselves, which they each ratified. The federal government is the result of these sovereign states forming their compact. It did not exist previously, as the sovereign states did. It is a result of their agreement. Without them, it would not exist.



And when they did they relinquished powers. As laid out in the constitution. These powers were relinquished to the federal government. And not by 'a state'. But by all the States. 

And 'the States' still possess the authority to change anything they wish in the Constitution: Amendments. 

A State does not. Which doesn't speak to the 'sovereignty' of an individual state.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 23, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Then how do you explain the exclusive jurisdiction over federal terrritories and property possessed by the Federal government?



That is easily explained. The states included the following in their agreement between themselves:

_To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, *and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be*, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings_



> Or the federal government's jurisdiction within all State territory?



The federal government's jurisdiction is limited to exercising the powers that the states delegated to it. 



> The former speaking to the Federal government's sovereignty. And the latter speaking to the sharing of authority over the territory of the States.
> 
> And when they did they relinquished powers.



No, as they made clear in their conventions, they _delegated_ powers.



> As laid out in the constitution. These powers were relinquished to the federal government. And not by 'a state'. But by all the States.
> 
> And 'the States' still possess the authority to change anything they wish in the Constitution: Amendments.
> 
> A State does not. Which doesn't speak to the 'sovereignty' of an individual state.



Each of the states in the union is sovereign. The federal government is an agent of these sovereign states.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 23, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Then how do you explain the exclusive jurisdiction over federal terrritories and property possessed by the Federal government?
> ...



These aren't agreements between the 'States'. But agreement between a State and the Federal government. If Alabama wanted to sell land to the Federal Government, California gets to say nothing on the matter.

And with the Federal government exercising exclusive authority, how can you claim that the Federal Government isn't a sovereign?



> Or the federal government's jurisdiction within all State territory?



The federal government's jurisdiction is limited to exercising the powers that the states delegated to it.
[/quote]

Then you acknowledge concurrent jurisdiction, with every state sharing jurisdiction over its territory with the federal government. The only thing left for you to fully embrace my argument is to acknowledge that the federal government is a sovereign.

*Which is self evident given their exclusive jurisdiction over federal property and federal territory.* Which they couldn't exercise without being a sovereign. The States exercise exclusive jurisdiction over no territory. None at all. Every square inch of their territory is ALSO territory of the United States. Over which the government of the United States also has jurisdiction.

In addition, the Federal government also has exclusive jurisdiction over territory that no State has authority over.

As I said: dual sovereigns and concurrent jurisdiction.



> No, as they made clear in their conventions, they _delegated_ powers.



They made it clear that these are powers that an individual state can no longer exercise. The states certainly have the authority to create new amendments to do whatever they want. But short of that, the power in question is no longer theirs to wield.

It is the federal government's to wield. Not any state's.



> Each of the states in the union is sovereign. The federal government is an agent of these sovereign states.



Each State is a concurrent sovereign. No State has any territory over which it exercises exclusive  jurisdiction. Every inch is shared with the Federal Government. The Federal government in contrast does have territory over which it exercises exclusive jurisdiction. All State citizens are also Federal citizens. The reverse is not necessarily true.

And you keep switching between 'individual state' and 'these sovereign states' as if they are the same legal entity exercising the same authority.

They aren't. The several states (3/4 of them anyway) can do things that an individual state cannot. And in terms of the relationship between the States and Federal government, the federal government is not the 'agent' of any State. Its the agent of the Several States. With the threshold of the authority of the Several States.....being 3/4 of their number.

Beneath that threshold, not so much.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 23, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Beneath that threshold, not so much.



The states were the authors of the constitution. The states' constitution created the fed gov. How can the creation tell the creators what they meant?


----------



## regent (Jan 23, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Beneath that threshold, not so much.
> ...


When the states voted to join they were now in the army, and the Civil War said in for life.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 24, 2016)

Centinel said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution is what the Court say it is, said Justice Holmes.
> ...


Wrong. 

The people created the Constitution, not the states, codifying their intent that the states not interfere with the relationship between the people and their National government: 

'It might be objected that because the States ratified the Constitution, the people can delegate power only through the States or by acting in their capacities as citizens of particular States. See post, at 2-3. But in _McCulloch v. Maryland_, the Court set forth its authoritative rejection of this idea:

"The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument . . . was submitted to the people. . . . It is true, they assembled in their several States--and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments." 4 Wheat., at 403.

[T]he National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. _McCulloch_ affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States."'

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

Consequently, the states are subordinate to the Federal government, to Federal laws, to rulings of the Federal courts, and to the Federal Constitution (see Article VI, US Cont.); likewise the rights of the people are paramount, immune from attack by the states, where the Supreme Court, not the states, determines the meaning of the Founding Document and the intent of the Framing Generation.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 24, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > A better analogy would be Concurrent Sovereigns. As the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction over its own territory and property. While sharing concurrent jurisdiction with every State. And was set by the founders as the arbiters of the meaning of the constitution through the federal judiciary.
> ...


No, this would be incorrect. 

_This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. _Article VI, US Cont. 

The supremacy of the Federal government, the Federal Constitution, its case law, and the Federal judiciary was the original intent of the people, where it was the people who created the Constitution, not the states, reflecting the will of the people to be subject solely to the rule of law.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 24, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The people created the Constitution, not the states, codifying their intent that the states not interfere with the relationship between the people and their National government:



Wrong.

Article 7:

_"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution *between the States* so ratifying the Same."_

See? Between the states.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 24, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No, this would be incorrect.
> 
> _This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. _Article VI, US Cont.



So where is the language the states included making the federal government the arbiter of the meaning of their compact? I don't even see the word "meaning" in the quote you provided.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 24, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Consequently, the states are subordinate to the Federal government, to Federal laws, to rulings of the Federal courts, and to the Federal Constitution (see Article VI, US Cont.); likewise the rights of the people are paramount, immune from attack by the states, where the Supreme Court, not the states, determines the meaning of the Founding Document and the intent of the Framing Generation.



The states cannot be subordinate to an agent they created through a compact between themselves.

However, in their making their compact, they all agreed that the constitution, and laws made in accordance with it, would be the supreme law of the land.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 24, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Beneath that threshold, not so much.
> ...



They can. With a 3/4 majority. The same threshold necessary to create the United States.

Remember, a state didn't create the United States. The several States did. And the threshold of their actions being 3/4.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 24, 2016)

Centinel said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Consequently, the states are subordinate to the Federal government, to Federal laws, to rulings of the Federal courts, and to the Federal Constitution (see Article VI, US Cont.); likewise the rights of the people are paramount, immune from attack by the states, where the Supreme Court, not the states, determines the meaning of the Founding Document and the intent of the Framing Generation.
> ...



Actually, they can. If your argument were valid than an individual citizen couldn't be imprisoned or fined by the State the people created. As the people are a parties to the compact that created the State as their agent.

But the State most definitely can weild the authority of the People and punish those who violate the people's laws.

*Your folly is in equating A State with the Several States. They aren't the same nor carry the same authority.* Anymore than a person is the same thing as 'The People'. The people collectively have more authority than an individual does. The Several States have authority that an individual State does not.

And the Several States can make any changes they wish to the Federal Government with the same threshold necessary to create the Federal government: 3/4.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 24, 2016)

And with your complete abandonment of any discussion of concurrent jurisdiction and dual sovereigns, can I take it you have recognized the validity of my points on the matter?


----------



## Centinel (Jan 24, 2016)

Skylar said:


> They can. With a 3/4 majority. The same threshold necessary to create the United States.
> 
> Remember, a state didn't create the United States. The several States did. And the threshold of their actions being 3/4.



Obviously a single state didn't create the union. The union is a compact between several states. And the federal government is the agent the states created through their compact.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 24, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Actually, they can. If your argument were valid than an individual citizen couldn't be imprisoned or fined by the State the people created. As the people are a parties to the compact that created the State as their agent.
> 
> But the State most definitely can weild the authority of the People and punish those who violate the people's laws.
> 
> ...



Obviously, when the states established their compact, they set up a rule that, by agreement of  3/4 of them, it could be amended. This is known.

My point is that it is the states that are the principals and the federal government is their agent, created through their ratification of the constitution they wrote. It is ridiculous to think that the agent could possibly know more about the meaning of the agreement they made than they do themselves, as they are the authors of that agreement. So to say only the federal government (the agent of the states) knows what the constitution means is ridiculous on its face.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 24, 2016)

Skylar said:


> And with your complete abandonment of any discussion of concurrent jurisdiction and dual sovereigns, can I take it you have recognized the validity of my points on the matter?



I don't agree with your take, but I didn't address it because I didn't find it relevant to the question of who is it that knows the true meaning of the constitution.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 24, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > They can. With a 3/4 majority. The same threshold necessary to create the United States.
> ...



Then you acknowledge that the theshold for exercising that authority is 3/4s?

I


----------



## Skylar (Jan 24, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And with your complete abandonment of any discussion of concurrent jurisdiction and dual sovereigns, can I take it you have recognized the validity of my points on the matter?
> ...



Its not my take. Its James Madison's and the Supreme Court's. And in terms of sovereignty, its immediately relevant. As we're not talking about a single sovereign. We're talking about dual sovereigns with concurrent jurisdiction. Its by far a more apt analogy. As it accurately describes the situation.

Every State shares sovereignty with the federal government. The reverse is not true. The Federal government holds territory of unique jurisdiction, over which no state has authority. And make no mistake: the Federal government is a sovereign. Its simply not the *only* sovereign.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 24, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, they can. If your argument were valid than an individual citizen couldn't be imprisoned or fined by the State the people created. As the people are a parties to the compact that created the State as their agent.
> ...



Again, the Several States can change the constitution to match whatever they feel it should be. But beneath the threshold of amendment, its the federal government's role to interpret the constitution and to hold the States to it. With the Bill of Rights applied to the States with the 14th amendment.

Thus, in any contest between a State and the Federal government on what the constitution is supposed to mean, the power delegated to the Federal goernment by the Several States trumps the authority of a single State. Even multiple States lack the authority of the Federal government in interpreting the Constitution.

Its only at the threshold of the amendment that the authority of the Several States exceeds that of the Federal government in terms of the meaning of the Constitution.



> So to say only the federal government (the agent of the states) knows what the constitution means is ridiculous on its face.



Which might have some relevance if that was the argument being forwarded. Instead, its that the Several States at the threshold of 3/4 have the authority to override the federal government in its duty to interpret the constitution. But beneath that threshold, any individual state or group of states lacks such authority. And the Federal Government's duty to interpret the constitution is supreme.

It would be akin to recognizing that the judiciary of a State is delegated by the People of that State the authority to interpret the State's constitution. The State government, along with its judiciary are agents of people. Yet a lone individual couldn't override that State's judiciary. Even a group of people couldn't unless that group was of sufficient size. But when the People in sufficient number get together to amend that State's constitution, they override the authority that was delegated to that State's judiciary. And impose whatever they wish.

*But to claim that the federal government lacks the authority to interpret the constitution over the interpretation of an individual state would be as ludicrous as claiming that the judiciary of a State lacked the authority to interpret the State's constitution over an individual person. *

Obviously the State judiciary has such authority over an individual citizen. Obviously the federal judiciary has such authority over an individual state. And below the numbers sufficient to amend their respective constitutions, that authority would be supreme.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Get specific. How are beliefs being 'infringed, imposed, or discriminated against' by government?



1. Example: if someone believes in paying for and providing health care by free market (such as donating to charity to pay for others, and paying for one's own health care with or without insurance as long as it's paid)
this is now PENALIZED -- it is NOT an equal choice as the others that aren't fined and are regulated by govt
(which is also against Constitutional beliefs in limited govt where such authorization requires an amendment voted on by States first, see below).

Under ACA, free market choices for paying for health care is NO LONGER an equal choice, but citizens get financially penalized for any other CHOICE/BELIEF about paying for health besides 
(a) govt regulated insurance (b) limited religious exemptions regulated by govt (c) federally regulated exchanges or hardship exemptions requiring registration through govt

Thus, people like me who identify as CONSTITUTIONALISTS and believe
(a) that govt is not designed nor has authority to regulate choice of health care for citizens
(b) any such expansion of federal govt requires a Constitutional Amendment before adding or expanding power
(c) that law abiding citizens were DEPRIVED of liberty WITHOUT due process, proof or conviction of crime,
because the given ACA mandates regulate and restrict health care choices under penalty of law
(d) the imposition on taxpayers constitutes "taxation without representation" because the tax/public health bill concerns private and personal health care and financial decisions that belong to individual citizens, and should be voted on at the State level, not mandated by federal govt (again unless there is an amendment voted on first)

2. Another level of discrimination by creed:
If we compare to prochoice and right to life beliefs:

The prochoice advocates argue that the "right to life beliefs" are imposing faith-based values and beliefs through govt, and demand FREE CHOICE instead of being forced to RESTRICT choices because of "OTHER people's beliefs or agenda they don't share."  So they insist on FREE CHOICE of abortion WITHOUT PENALTY.

Here, free market advocates argue that the "right to health care" is imposing unproven faith-based beliefs through govt, and demand FREE CHOICE instead of being forced to RESTRICT choices because of "OTHER people's beliefs or agenda they don't share."  However, this argument for FREE CHOICE is not even recognized.  It is assumed people need to buy insurance anyway, so what difference does it make to require it?

That's similar to the PROLIFE argument that abortion is murder "not a choice" so nobody should be choosing that anyway!

My point is, if you compare the two, clearly there is DISCRIMINATION against the "right to life" beliefs and defense of free market, compared with the "right to health care" beliefs and defense of free choice in abortion.

Most disturbing to me, is the argument that govt should NOT be used to penalize the choice of abortion
yet govt IS being used to PENALIZE the choice of "not buying insurance" which is HARMLESS in comparison.
The choice of abortion runs a much higher risk of permanent damage and irreversible harm from terminating life
than the choice "not to buy insurance" which doesn't mean automatic death -- it still means someone could pay for health care other ways.  It doesn't automatically mean someone DIES if they "don't buy insurance"
but choosing abortion terminates life and does pose greater risks.  So why is abortion NOT penalized, but something as natural as wanting to CHOOSE HOW pay for and provide health care is penalized?

This shows a bias in political beliefs, and discrimination by creed for govt to impose one while penalizing the other. To protect both equally, people of both beliefs should have equal choice to fund theirs without penalty.


> (2)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Yes and no Skylar
I would agree with you when it comes to SECULAR laws that people AGREE to submit to govt authority.
But with BELIEFS, no human being I know agrees to submit any such thing to govt or church or any authority
to decide for them. That runs against human nature.

So there is a LIMIT to govt authority.

The First Amendment clearly states that CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; the Fourteenth Amendment EXPANDED all these protections of the laws to the STATES to enforce for persons under their jurisdiction; and the Civil Rights Act EXPANDED these protections further to all public institutions.

So at NO level of govt can public authority be abused to impose or infringe on the beliefs or creeds of individuals.

Just because govt and courts are run by human beings, and as such can imposed biased rulings,
does not mean we have to blindly follow them.

We retain the right to petition, to redress grievance, to demand equal protection of the laws from abuses that violate our rights or discriminate against us by creed.

That goes for not only the judiciary but any level of govt where we feel we are denied equal rights or protections.

We are not required to give up our beliefs to the whims of people running govt.
That is against the Constitution, and it is up to us to enforce it consistently so such violations STOP.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 25, 2016)

regent said:


> The Constitution is what the Court say it is, said Justice Holmes.


 
Dear regent we would have the equivalent of a secular theocracy
if the Courts and Judges are treated as having divine right to rule and to "pontificate like
the Pope on the bench" for all people to obey whatever they rule on.

The ultimate check on govt is the People.  As Jefferson reiterated that REASON was
necessary to follow and apply at all times, and that the "just powers of government are
derived from the CONSENT of the governed."

We cannot just blindly follow whatever is decided through govt, because blind faith in
that is as bad as blind faith in religion. We should still check against our standards of
Constitutional and moral ethics and reason.

In the case of laws or rulings that are biased by BELIEF or FAITH-BASED arguments,
these should ESPECIALLY be checked against Constitutional principles of
religious freedom, equal protection of the laws for all people regardless of belief,
and specifically protection from discrimination by creed.

Ex: some examples of judicial rulings I found to be out of govt jurisdiction because they made
decisions FOR people in cases of conflict between EQUALLY faith-based, spiritual or
unproven choices:

A. the court decision to side with the husband of Terri Schiavo who had NO WRITTEN
PROOF that she wanted to die. Thus this was FAITH based. The court went with the
HUSBAND due to marriage laws recognizing his jurisdiction (and he was also legal guardian); however, the family had solid arguments that he had a CONFLICT of INTEREST in already starting a family and living with another woman and he was biased in his own beliefs toward terminating her life, while having no proof of her beliefs.  Given this conflict of interest, the court COULD have treated all individuals equally who had BELIEFS about what Terri Schiavo wanted.  The court could have order the family to MEDIATE until consensus is reached, so that everyone's beliefs are respected equally. Anyone who didn't believe in consensus could abstain from the process; and only include people willing to work together until a consensus is reached.  Otherwise the court was making a spiritual faith-based decision and imposing it on Terri Schiavo and her family based on the BELIEFS of her husband shown to have a conflict of interest and a bias in his own beliefs and self-interest in terminating her life, instead of letting her family take over custody and care for her if he no longer wanted that responsibility.

B. the court decision(s) creating or establishing the BELIEF in marriage equality
This should have been done on a state level, and by consensus of the people per state since marriage involves personal beliefs. Either agree on the wording of the laws to be completely neutral and free of bias toward one belief or another, or remove marriage from the state and keep it private through individuals or private institutions.

It was not the place of federal govt or judges to decide marriage beliefs for the public.
Secular civil contracts could have been declared either open to all beliefs, or banished from the govt to regulate.
And then leave it to the States to decide if they want to privatize marriage and benefits, or agree on a public policy that includes all people of all beliefs.  The courts should have remained NEUTRAL and ordered States to come up with a consensus policy that was universally inclusive, or else remove marriage and keep it private.

C. the court decisions ruling in favor of the ACA mandates
1. The ACA mandates in expanding the powers of federal govt to regulate and fine private health care choices
should have required a Constitutional Amendment voted on by States before considering this authorized
2. as is, the enforcement of the mandates as given discriminates on the basis of creed
a. the federal govt is basically regulating exemptions based on paid religious membership in preapproved groups
while denying exemptions to others; so it is federal govt regulating religion, and deciding which get exemptions
b. people of Constitutional beliefs who believe in free market and the rights of people and the States to decide on health care and finances are penalized for not complying with federal mandates clearly violating said beliefs.
3. If I were on the Supreme Court I would have argued that the mandates must be by voluntary compliance or it's unconstitutional to require this for citizens without their consent. If people want benefits under this ACA, they can choose to be under the requirements as given. I would argue that freedom of choice is necessary by the First and Fourteenth Amendment to respect equal beliefs of citizens that the bill violates the principle of "no taxation without representation"; the Tenth Amendment rights of states and people; as well as Constitutional laws against depriving citizens of liberty without due process and/or imposing servitude involuntarily except as penalty for a crime.

I would not have found that the govt had enough "compelling interest" to impose restrictions on individual liberty
or that "imposing insurance requirements" was the "minimal restriction".

The "minimal restriction" might be to compel citizens to pay for health care and not impose this on the public,
or to require states to provide means of ensuring health coverage for citizens instead of imposing this federally.

But there is nothing in the Constitution giving federal govt the authority to DICTATE MANDATE or REGULATE HOW THIS IS DONE. The most that could have been compelled is to require states or people to cover their health care costs and/or the population of their states. The "least restrictive" would have been not to dictate how.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Fine Skylar

I will try writing a public letter to Justice Roberts and President Obama, as well as Congresswoman Pelosi and other Democrats touting this ACA mandate as the law of the land,
and try to convince more people, especially in federal govt positions, to recognize POLITICAL BELIEFS
that should be treated equally and not penalized by laws in favor of other beliefs.

People have to understand the argument FIRST before we can expect to translate it into our
legal and governmental systems.

If enough people GET this argument, then we can possibly compel the lawmakers and judiciary
to reconsider the discriminatory effect of the laws and rulings that I argue impose on the basis of faith-based biases, and aren't equally protective or representative of the entire public the govt is supposed to serve.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



*Dear Skylar 
so where is this 3/4 majority to amend the Constitution
to expand the powers of federal govt to regulate "health care choices for all citizens" and impose tax penalties
depending on choices and exemptions also regulated by govt.*


----------



## Centinel (Jan 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Then you acknowledge that the theshold for exercising that authority is 3/4s?
> 
> I



I acknowledge that the states, when they established their compact, agree that they could amend it by a 3/4 majority of them.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Its not my take. Its James Madison's and the Supreme Court's. And in terms of sovereignty, its immediately relevant. As we're not talking about a single sovereign. We're talking about dual sovereigns with concurrent jurisdiction. Its by far a more apt analogy. As it accurately describes the situation.
> 
> Every State shares sovereignty with the federal government. The reverse is not true. The Federal government holds territory of unique jurisdiction, over which no state has authority. And make no mistake: the Federal government is a sovereign. Its simply not the *only* sovereign.



As established by the Treaty of Paris, the states are sovereign. The federal is an organization created by them through a treaty for the purpose of exercising a small set of enumerated powers on their behalf. It is not sovereign but only gains its power by having it delegated by the states.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 25, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



The Supreme Court has found that such an amendment is unnecessary. As its within the federal government's authority to do so. 

The Several States can overturn the Supreme Court's finding on the matter with an amendment. But so far have chosen not to.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 25, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Then you acknowledge that the theshold for exercising that authority is 3/4s?
> ...



Awesome. I agree.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 25, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Its not my take. Its James Madison's and the Supreme Court's. And in terms of sovereignty, its immediately relevant. As we're not talking about a single sovereign. We're talking about dual sovereigns with concurrent jurisdiction. Its by far a more apt analogy. As it accurately describes the situation.
> ...



And established through the Constitution and the 14th amendment that the Several States delegated much of their authority in a federal government. A federal government that wields sovereign powers of its own and maintains concurrent jurisdiction over all State territory. And unique jurisdiction over exclusively federal territory. 

It was James Madison himself that coined the term 'concurrent jurisdiction' when describing the relationship between the States and Federal government. And he's a damn good source on the topic. Better than either one of us.

In a contest between an individual state, the Judicial Power delegated to the Federal government grants its authority to interpret the constitution. With the 14th amendment granting the federal government authority to protect the rights of Federal citizens in any State. The Supremacy Clause puts the constitution as the Supreme Law in the United States. And the judicial power grants the judiciary to interpret that constitution.

The Several States have the authority to override that delegated federal authority. An individual state does not. Nor does any collection of States beneath the threshold of 3/4 necessary to amend the constitution.

Thus, short of an amendment, the Federal Judiciary is authoritative on the issues that arise under the Constitution. And can overturn State laws that violate individual privileges and immunities.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 25, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



'Beliefs' simply don't hold the hallowed and reverent status in our law that you believe they do. Religious convictions do.

A belief is merely a state of mind or a perspective. And the democratic process itself mandates that in virtually every situation the beliefs of all are not represented. Merely the beliefs of the relevant majority.

Universal consensus is neither necessary nor practically speaking, possible. A relevant majority is.

When people disagree, a relevant majority wins. Bound, of course by individual rights. And there is no recognized 'right' that prevents any application of law that contradicts someone's beliefs. There are rights that protect religious convictions, however.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> And established through the Constitution and the 14th amendment that the Several States delegated much of their authority in a federal government.



They, through the treaty they established between themselves, delegated some limited set of powers to their creation, the federal government.



> A federal government that wields sovereign powers of its own and maintains concurrent jurisdiction over all State territory. And unique jurisdiction over exclusively federal territory.



While the several sovereign states may have delegated some legislative powers to their agent, granting it jurisdiction over certain areas, their agent is not sovereign. The states are sovereign, and their agent, the federal government, only has the jurisdiction granted to it by the states.



> It was James Madison himself that coined the term 'concurrent jurisdiction' when describing the relationship between the States and Federal government. And he's a damn good source on the topic. Better than either one of us.



Clearly the states granted their agent, the federal government, jurisdiction over certain areas. So Madison was correct that both the states and their agent have areas over which each has jurisdiction.



> In a contest between an individual state, the Judicial Power delegated to the Federal government grants its authority to interpret the constitution.



Can you cite any clause in the constitution that contains the word "interpret"?



> With the 14th amendment granting the federal government authority to protect the rights of Federal citizens in any State. The Supremacy Clause puts the constitution as the Supreme Law in the United States. And the judicial power grants the judiciary to interpret that constitution.



The judicial power merely grants the power to judge cases between plaintiff and defendant.



> The Several States have the authority to override that delegated federal authority. An individual state does not. Nor does any collection of States beneath the threshold of 3/4 necessary to amend the constitution.
> 
> Thus, short of an amendment, the Federal Judiciary is authoritative on the issues that arise under the Constitution. And can overturn State laws that violate individual privileges and immunities.



Going back to my original comment in this thread, nothing in the constitution grants any branch of the federal government the exclusive authority to declare the official meaning of the constitution.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 25, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And established through the Constitution and the 14th amendment that the Several States delegated much of their authority in a federal government.
> ...



Of course the federal government is sovereign. Else how could it exercise unique authority over its own territory? Something no State can do. By nature of its exclusive jurisdiction, the Federal government would have to be a sovereign. As only a sovereign could wield jurisdiction and make the rules within that territory unilaterally. Remember, the Property clause includes no restrictions on the powers that Congress can wield within its Territories or other Property.

And of course, how could the Federal government exercise jurisdiction over all of territory of every State if it were not a Sovereign. There's a better argument to be made for the sovereignty of the Federal government than a State government after the ratification of the Constitution. *As the Federal Government has territory in which it alone exercises authority. The States have none*, sharing jurisdiction with the federal government on every square inch within their borders. And the idea of shared jurisdiction doesn't denote sovereignty. Yet this is all a State possesses.

You could argue that the Several States are the supreme authority, as they can override any power or action by the Federal government. And since the Several States held supreme authority, they were sovereign while the federal government was not.

*But if you were to make such an argument, then you'd have to admit that an individual state isn't sovereign by the same logic. *As they are subject to the Several States, who would act as the same sovereign over both an individual state and federal government.

So either both Federal government and a state government is sovereign.* Or neither a state or federal government is.* With the only sovereign being the 'Several States', working at 3/4s or higher. And if you made that argument then you'd have to admit that the individual states sacrificed their individual sovereignty when they ratified the constitution. With the 'Several States' now the only sovereign.

Which would obliterate your entire 'principle and agent' argument. As the 'principles' would no longer exist as unique sovereigns, having been subsumed into the 'Several States' with the ratification of the Constitution.

Leaving you with only one possible conclusion: the Federal AND a State government are sovereigns. Dual sovereigns with concurrent jurisdiction over the same territory: the territory of the State.



> Can you cite any clause in the constitution that contains the word "interpret"?



Its part of the judicial power. The founders describe it in detail in Federalist paper 78.



			
				Federalist Paper 78 said:
			
		

> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. I*t therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. *If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .
> 
> The Federalist #78



With judicial review part of our legal tradition before the ratification of the constitution and after.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 25, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



The states, in making their compact between themselves, gave their agent the ability to exercise legislative authority over these sorts of places:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

The the states granted the federal government the authority to exercise authority over certain places.



> Something no State can do. By nature of its exclusive jurisdiction, the Federal government would have to be a sovereign. As only a sovereign could wield jurisdiction and make the rules within that territory unilaterally.



The states only gave the federal government jurisdiction over DC and lands it purchases.



> Remember, the Property clause includes no restrictions on the powers that Congress can wield within its Territories or other Property.
> 
> And of course, how could the Federal government exercise jurisdiction over all of territory of every State if it were not a Sovereign.



Because the sovereign states delegated it some degree of jurisdiction. It is not sovereign but merely a creation of the sovereign states.



> There's a better argument to be made for the sovereignty of the Federal government than a State government after the ratification of the Constitution. As the Federal Government has territory in which it alone exercises authority. The States have none, sharing jurisdiction with the federal government on every square inch within their borders. And the idea of shared jurisdiction doesn't denote sovereignty. Yet this is all a State possesses.
> 
> You could argue that the Several States are the supreme authority, as they can override any power or action by the Federal government. And since the Several States held supreme authority, they were sovereign while the federal government was not.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure I agree with your analysis. The several states, through their treaty,  created the federal government. The states are sovereign. The federal government derives its power solely from the states. It is not sovereign. It is merely a product of the compact established between the several states.



> Leaving you with only one possible conclusion: the Federal AND a State government are sovereigns. Dual sovereigns with concurrent jurisdiction over the same territory: the territory of the State.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you can cite no language in the constitution, the compact between the several states, that contains the word "interpret". It is as I thought.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 25, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And established through the Constitution and the 14th amendment that the Several States delegated much of their authority in a federal government.
> ...



Its a compact that bound the States to the will of the Several States.



> The states only gave the federal government jurisdiction over DC and lands it purchases.



Acknowledging my exact point. As DC, federal property and Territories are *exclusive* federal jurisdiction, in which the Federal Government is the supreme authority, making all the rules. Demonstrating that the federal government is indeed a sovereign. As it couldn't be the Supreme Authority in *any* territory if it weren't.
*
Exclusive jurisdiction over territory is something no State can claim.* As they share jurisdiction with the Federal government. With the Federal government having jurisdiction over every square inch of State territory. While no State has any jurisdiction over Federal Property or Territories.

As I said, there's a stronger argument to be made for the Sovereignty of the Federal government than any State government. As no State has exclusive jurisdiction over_ any territory._ Not one square inch.



> I'm not sure I agree with your analysis. The several states, through their treaty,  created the federal government. The states are sovereign.



The Several States through their compact* bound themselves equally to the will of the Several States. *It is the Several States that are the supreme authority in the US. If the Federal government isn't sovereign because it is subject to the authority of the Several States...._then neither is any individual State._

You can't have it both ways.

Pick one. Either both the Federal government and an individual State are sovereign, or neither are. And if you argue that neither are.....then your argument that an individual state is sovereign implodes. As does your 'principle and agent' argument. As your principles were subsumed into the authority of the Several States.

Article V ends the unique sovereignty of any individual state. If the Several States agree....they can do pretty much anything they want to the States that don't agree. So the Federal Government and an Individual State are equally subject to the authority of the Several States. Whatever status you acknowledge in one, you must acknowledge in the other.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 26, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You are confusing jurisdiction with sovereignty. The sovereign states, when they formed their compact, delegated to their federal government certain powers. The exercise of these powers are within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The fact that it has been granted jurisdiction over certain areas doesn't make it sovereign. The states remain sovereign.

As far as one states versus the several states, I agree. Each of the individual states in the union must abide by the terms of the compact that the states established between themselves. 

However, to return to my original point, it is the sovereign states who are the authority on what the constitution means, not their agent, the federal government. They are the authors of the document.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 26, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Jurisdiction is merely the authority to apply law. *I'm equating the authority to rule territory and set rules as sovereignty. *And no State rules its own territory exclusively. It shares jurisdiction with the Federal government for every square inch of its territory.

The Federal government in contrast rules its territory uniquely and exclusively. Sharing neither jurisdiction with no one. Something it couldn't do if it wasn't a Sovereign. 



> The sovereign states, when they formed their compact, delegated to their federal government certain powers. The exercise of these powers are within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The fact that it has been granted jurisdiction over certain areas doesn't make it sovereign. The states remain sovereign.


Individual States do not remain sovereign by your own argument. Article V strips an individual state of its own sovereignty by placing it under the authority of the Several States. With any reference I make to 'the Several States' being a 3/4 majority of States.

If the federal government isn't a sovereign because it is subject to being override by the Several States...then an individual state isn't sovereign either. As it too is beholden in the exact same way. *The constitution bound the states equally to the will of the Several States.* An amendment by the Several States can strip any State of any power, any territory, anything at all. Even existence itself. There are no restrictions on amendments. 

You can't have it both ways. Either the Federal government and the State governments are sovereigns as they exercise authority over their own territory....or neither are sovereign as both are subject to the authority of the Several States.

Pick an interpretation. As they're mutually exclusive. 



> However, to return to my original point, it is the sovereign states who are the authority on what the constitution means, not their agent, the federal government. They are the authors of the document.



It depends on what you mean by 'sovereign states'. If you're referring to any *individual* state, you're obviously wrong. As the Several States which you admit individual states are bound to has delegated the judicial power to the federal judiciary. With both the Supremacy clause and the 14th amendment demonstrating that an individual state is beholden to the Constitution. 

A constitution that the Federal Judiciary interprets, as Federalist 78 makes ludicrously obvious. As does history....with judicial review being described by the Federalists as the check on legislative power. With the same judicial review preceding the constitution as part of our legal tradition and following the ratification of the constittuion as part of our caselaw. 

If by 'sovereign states' you mean the Several State, the 3/4 majority, then of course. The Several States can override the federal judiciary on anything they wish. Even the existence of the Federal Judiciary is at the whim of the Several States. As is the existence of any individual State or State power.

So you'll need to get specific on what you mean by 'sovereign states'. Any_ individual _State? Or the 3/4 majority of the Several States?


----------



## Centinel (Jan 26, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Jurisdiction is merely the authority to apply law. I'm equating the authority to rule territory and set rules as sovereignty. And no State rules its own territory exclusively. It shares jurisdiction with the Federal government for every square inch of its territory.
> 
> The Federal government in contrast rules its territory uniquely and exclusively. Sharing neither jurisdiction with no one. Something it couldn't do if it wasn't a Sovereign.



But the ability to make rules in not sovereignty. The federal government can exercise certain powers because the sovereign states, in their treaty that created the federal government, granted it the authority to perform certain tasks. That is not sovereignty. That is agency.



> Individual States do not remain sovereign by your own argument. Article V strips an individual state of its own sovereignty by placing it under the authority of the Several States. With any reference I make to 'the Several States' being a 3/4 majority of States.
> 
> If the federal government isn't a sovereign because it is subject to being override by the Several States...then an individual state isn't sovereign either. As it too is beholden in the exact same way. The constitution bound the states equally to the will of the Several States. An amendment by the Several States can strip any State of any power, any territory, anything at all. Even existence itself. There are no restrictions on amendments.



Article V, nor anything else in the constitution, strips any state of its sovereignty. Article V simply allows for 3/4 of the states to amend the treaty. 



> You can't have it both ways. Either the Federal government and the State governments are sovereigns as they exercise authority over their own territory....or neither are sovereign as both are subject to the authority of the Several States.
> 
> Pick an interpretation. As they're mutually exclusive.



Here's my interpretation: The states were sovereign prior the their ratification of their compact, and they remain sovereign. The federal government is a creature of the treaty established between the sovereign states. The treaty may be amended by 3/4 of the states in the union, but that in no way effects the sovereign status of each individual member state.



> It depends on what you mean by 'sovereign states'. If you're referring to any *individual* state, you're obviously wrong. As the Several States which you admit individual states are bound to has delegated the judicial power to the federal judiciary. With both the Supremacy clause and the 14th amendment demonstrating that an individual state is beholden to the Constitution.
> 
> A constitution that the Federal Judiciary interprets, as Federalist 78 makes ludicrously obvious. As does history....with judicial review being described by the Federalists as the check on legislative power. With the same judicial review preceding the constitution as part of our legal tradition and following the ratification of the constittuion as part of our caselaw.
> 
> ...



I mean each individual sovereign state in the union knows what they agreed to when their delegates signed and their people ratified the constitution. Additionally, the constitution does not give the judiciary the power to declare the meaning of the constitution. It simply gives it the power to judge cases.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 26, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Jurisdiction is merely the authority to apply law. I'm equating the authority to rule territory and set rules as sovereignty. And no State rules its own territory exclusively. It shares jurisdiction with the Federal government for every square inch of its territory.
> ...


Ruling territory and setting rules for it_ is _sovereignty. The Federal government is answerable to no one but itself over its own territory. No state claims such territory, sets any rule for it, nor has any jurisdiction. The Federal government applies its own rules.

Which is the definition of sovereignty: supreme authority.

The States are subject to the authority of the Federal government over all State territory. While the Federal government is subject to the authority of no State in Federal territory and property.



> The federal government can exercise certain powers because the sovereign states, in their treaty that created the federal government, granted it the authority to perform certain tasks. That is not sovereignty. That is agency.



Save that there's no restrictions to the rules that the Federal government can apply to its own territory. Look at the Property clause. No such restrictions exist. Congress can set rules and regulations on its own territory and property as it sees fit. Unilaterally without any input from anyone.

And while the Several States can override the federal government, the Federal government in dealing with a single State isn't dealing with the Several States. The Supremacy Clause, the Judicial Power and the 14th amendment allow the Federal government to restrict any individual State actions that violate the constitution. With the Federal government delegated the authority to interpret the constitution as part of the judicial power.
*
The Federal government isn't an agent for any individual State. But of the the Several States. *

So we're talking about two different relationships. The Federal government in relation to an individual State. And the Federal Government in relation to the Several States. And these relationships are quite distinct and profoundly different.

Remember, the individual States were bound through compact to the will of the Several States. The Federal Government is the agent of the Several States that any individual state is beholden to. And the Federal government has vast authority over an individual state by nature of the compact that bind the individual States. With the Supremacy Clause, the Judicial Power and the 14th amendment granting the agent of the Several States the ability to impose the constitution on any individual State.

This is again analogous to citizens within a State. An individual doesn't wield the power of the State government. But a relevant majority does. And this relevant majority establishes law enforcement, legislative and judicial bodies to enact its will. These bodies have vast powers over individuals, but can be overridden by relevant majorities through specific legal procedures.

In this analogy, the individual citizen an individual state. The relevant majority is the Several States. And the law enforcement, legislative and judicial bodies are the Federal government. The relationship of the State government with a relevant majority is profoundly different than its relationship with an individual citizen. Similarly, the relationship of the Federal government is profoundly different with the Several States than its relationship with an individual State.




> Article V, nor anything else in the constitution, strips any state of its sovereignty. Article V simply allows for 3/4 of the states to amend the treaty.


Of course it does. As the States *though* the Treaty* are beholden to the will of the Several States.* Whatever the Treaty says, an individual State is bound to it. See the Supremacy Clause.

*And the Several States can make the Treaty say.....anything. *There are no restrictions in Article V as to what amendments can or can't be made. The Several States can seize any power, any territory, do anything to any State. To use crass but thoroughly accurate parlance, if the law is whatever I say it is, and you have to follow the law...._you're my bitch._

Not a sovereign.

An individual State is no more a sovereign by your reasoning than an individual citizen is. An individual State is beholden to the will of the Several States in a manner similar to the way an individual citizen is beholden to the will of a relevant majority. Save in the case of the individual there are rights that limit actions of the State.

*Article V has no such restrictions. The Several States can do....anything.* There is only one card that trumps amendment: Revolution.




> Here's my interpretation: The states were sovereign prior the their ratification of their compact, and they remain sovereign.



But they're demonstrably not after the ratification of the Constitution, as being bound to the will of the Several States demonstrates. They don't even have exclusive jurisdiction over their own territory. They have to share it with the Federal government. The agent of the Several States.

The Federal Government at least has exclusive jurisdiction over its own territory.

The States were transformed from individual sovereigns to a voting entities in a republic. With the will of the relevant majority (3/4) binding any State to any decision. To claim that a State is an individual sovereign under such circumstances makes no more sense than insisting that an individual citizen is similarly sovereign within a State.

Neither the individual State nor the individual citizen would be. They would both be beholden to relevant majorities.

In your scenario, any individual citizen can unilaterally decide that a police officer or a judge have no authority over them. And that the citizen themselves is the sole arbiter of the law's meaning. *That's not our system of laws. Nor ever has been. *



> I mean each individual sovereign state in the union knows what they agreed to when their delegates signed and their people ratified the constitution.Additionally, the constitution does not give the judiciary the power to declare the meaning of the constitution. It simply gives it the power to judge cases.



The judicial power is described by the founders as most definitely including the authority to interpret the constitution. This was not a mystery nor something 'sneaked in'. It was very much part of the debate with the Federalists making it very clear that that among the checks and balances. If the legislature passed a law that was contradicted the constitution, deference was given to the Supreme Law, the Constitution.

Interpreting the law is the role of a judiciary. And the constitution must be considered the supreme law. Which the Supreme Court interprets.

This is what judiciaries do. This is why they exist; to adjudicate. The idea that a judiciary can adjudicate a case about the constitutionality, but *never* rule against a law that was in violation of the Supreme Law is ludicrous. Of course they can. that's what they're supposed to do. And this was their role before and after the ratification of the Constitution.

Originally this authority was limited to federal laws. With the Several States unbound by the Bill of Rights. Which limited federal action exclusively. But with the 14th amendment, the States were included, bound by many of the same restrictions as the federal government. Well, eventually.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 26, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Ruling territory and setting rules for it is sovereignty. The Federal government is answerable to no one but itself over its own territory. No state claims such territory, sets any rule for it, nor has any jurisdiction. The Federal government applies its own rules.
> 
> Which is the definition of sovereignty: supreme authority.
> 
> ...



Prior to entering into their compact each of the states was sovereign. They never gave up this sovereignty, and each of them agreed to the terms of the treaty they established between themselves. The federal government only has the powers that the states granted it. While they have delegated to it certain powers, it is merely acting as their agent.

Likewise, Pennsylvania is not sovereign over New York, nor vice versa. Each is a sovereign and equal state. The fact that they and others have entered into a voluntary treaty does not diminish either of their sovereignty. And if 3/4 of the states were to change the rules of the treaty in a way that was unacceptable to, say, Pennsylvania, then there is no prohibition in the treaty against it leaving the union. 

Again, the union is a compact made between sovereign states. Yes, each state that wishes to continue membership in the union must, of course, abide by the rules of the union, which they agreed to on entering. However, as a sovereign state, and with no prohibition in the treaty, if it came to it, any state could exit the union if membership became contrary to its state interests.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 26, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Ruling territory and setting rules for it is sovereignty. The Federal government is answerable to no one but itself over its own territory. No state claims such territory, sets any rule for it, nor has any jurisdiction. The Federal government applies its own rules.
> ...



They would have had to give up their individual sovereignty to become part of the republic. As they are no longer the Supreme Authority. The Several States are.

Lets use your pattern and see if it holds up. The State is the agent of the people. The people are the principals and the State is their agent. The people cannot embue the State with sovereignty if the People do not at some point have sovereignty themselves. *Per your logic, that means that the State can *never* impose any rule on any citizen as the citizen is a principal. And thus retain their status as sovereigns. *

That's not how our system of law works. Or has _ever_ worked.

The individual is not a sovereign. They are subject to the will of the relevant majority as a member of the State. And the State most definitely *can* apply rules and regulations created by the authority of the relevant majority. And impose those rules regardless of the desires of the individual. Though with individuals there are rights which limit State action.

With Article V, there are no limits. An amendment can do....anything.

*The States *were* sovereign. But transformed themselves into a republic by common compact*. And as a republic they are beholden to the will of the relevant majority. They are not sovereigns anymore than an individual is sovereign over the State in which they are a citizen.

Your 'principal/agent' dichotomy doesn't preserve sovereignty over the individual state. *As the principal isn't the individual State. The principal is the Several States.*The Several States are sovereign. The individual States are not.

Just as the State is the servant of the People. Not an individual person. Its the People that are the sovereigns. Not any one person.

Your argument is that it is the individual that is the sovereign. That the individual gets to decide what the Constitution means, what the law mean, everything. And that's simply not the case in our system of law.

Nor has it *ever* been.



> Likewise, Pennsylvania is not sovereign over New York, nor vice versa. Each is a sovereign and equal state. The fact that they and others have entered into a voluntary treaty does not diminish either of their sovereignty.



Of course it diminishes their sovereignty. They are no longer the Supreme authority in their own territory. But share it with the agent of the Several States to whom they are beholden. The Several States can strip an individual State of any power, any territory, and authority. They can disband the State if they wish. The Several States can do....anything. And the individual State cannot stop them.

Nor is there a square inch of territory that any State has exclusive jurisdiction over. They share all of their territory with the Agent of the Several States.

That's not sovereignty.



> And if 3/4 of the states were to change the rules of the treaty in a way that was unacceptable to, say, Pennsylvania, then there is no prohibition in the treaty against it leaving the union.



Nope. As when the States entered the compact they became equally bound to the will of the Several States. They remain bound until it is agreed by the same common compact that they no longer are. James Madison makes it very clear unilateral secession is no part of the Constitution. Nor ever was. Both during the ratification of the Constitution and after.



			
				James Madison said:
			
		

> _"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. "_



This is the fundamental fallacy of your argument.* You confound a single party with the parties to the Constitutional Compact of the United States.*

They are not the same thing. An individual state is not the same thing as the Several States. Nor do they wield the same power. As the Father of the Constitution himself makes ludicrously clear. Madison takes it farther still in a letter to Daniel Webster on the same topic:



			
				James Madison said:
			
		

> The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary _Rights_ of the people in extreme cases.
> 
> It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its _operation,_ in _every respect_ must be precisely the _same,_ whether its authority be derived from that of the _people,_ in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.



The sovereignty is imbued in the people of the several states. The people of an individual state are not the People of the Sovereign States. The People mentioned in the constitution are the People of the Several States.



			
				James Madison said:
			
		

> "The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism."
> 
> James Madison



*The constitution must be exited by the same community it was entered into: the Several States.* It cannot be exited unilaterally by a separate community anymore than you can unilaterally declare that your house is its own country.

You lack the authority to make that decision for the people of the State and Country you live in. Just as an individual State lacks the authority to declare its the territory it shares jurisdiction over with the Agent of the Several States is now the individual State's alone.

The Several States get a say. And given that the Constitution subordinates the will of an individual State to the will of the Several States, the Several States get THE say. And excercise that authority through  their agent:

The Federal Government.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 26, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



When a state enters into a treaty with other states, it does not relinquish its sovereignty. It simply agrees to be bound by certain rules as condition of remaining in the treaty. 

Can you cite the language in the constitution that forbids any state from leaving?


----------



## Skylar (Jan 27, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



The constitution isn't a 'treaty'. Its a solemn compact that transformed the States from individual sovereigns into a republic. Not an agreement on the width of wagon axles across State lines.
*
Your 'principal-agent' assumptions simply don't work.* As the People are the principals in the creation of a State in the exact manner that the Several States are principals in the creation of the United States. If your assumption that any individual  State can unilaterally separate their territory from the United States, unilaterally interpret the Constitution as they see fit, and unilaterally ignore any amendment or statute that they don't like...

....then an individual citizen of a State would have the same authority to ignore any of the same created by the State of which they are a citizen. And could unilaterally declare any property they own to be their own country.

*But this has never been the way our laws works. You are in error on who the principals are, and who they are agents for. *The principal is not an individual State. Its the Several States. And the United States Federal government isn't the agent of any individual State. But of the Several States.

Just as the Principal in the creation of a State is not any individual person. But The People of that State, as expressed in a relevant majority. With the State judiciary, executive and legislatures *being agents of The People. Not any individual person.* And if an individual person violates the laws established through the will of The People, they are subject to enforcement, adjudication and punishment. The individuals are not sovereigns. The People are the sovereign. With individual citizens being subject to the will of the People. Though as mentioned before, the actions of the State are limited by rights. There are no such restrictions in the relationship of the Several States to the individual States

* When your pattern and assumptions is applied in an explicitly analogous arrangement, it breaks. *And it breaks because you're engaged in the very fallacy that the Oregon Militia engaged in, that the Sovereign Citizen movement is engaged in, that Madison himself warned and argued against:


_The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. - James Madison
_

*This is your fallacy.* Your entire argument is predicated on the single party having the exact authority as the Parties to the Compact. And that's simply not the case. As Article V and the Supremacy Clause makes ludicrously clear. As an even passing appraisal of individual citizens as their relationship with the agent of the People, their State makes clear. And you've resolved none of these huge, theory killing holes in your argument. You've simply refrained from addressing them.

They yet remain.



> Can you cite the language in the constitution that forbids any state from leaving?



The Preamble alone breaks your argument. As it defines the Principal engaged in the compact of the Constitution: we the People of the United States. The people of an individual State alone are not the 'People of the United States' anymore than the folks in your livingroom are the 'People' in your State in any legal sense.

Any changes to be made to this compact must be done by its Principal. And with the same threshold of the exercise of authority as created the compact. As Madison makes ridiculously clear. There's a reason you refuse to address Madison's argument on this topic. As he obliterates yours.


----------



## 12icer (Jan 27, 2016)

SO for your purpose you admit that the United States violated the Constitution, and committed an offense that was sufficient for redress by levying tariffs on the southern states and they were only wrong in their method of withdrawing from the Union before the Civil War. That being settled The Civil War then was the complete fault of the Union, and of the President. The consideration for the redress and the dissolution of the Union would have taken 2/3 of the states of the Union at the time, or the changing of the Constitution to allow unequal tariffs being levied on states would have taken the same? Is that your position? Very interesting position, it would require a state by state tariff inspection, and a complete reading of the levied tariff. as to the availability of the goods in all venues. I guess you have a good knowledge of all these facts., since I'm sure you feel the destruction of the southern states was justified, and the people killed were vile disgusting racist, not just people protecting their homes.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 27, 2016)

12icer said:


> SO for your purpose you admit that the United States violated the Constitution, and committed an offense that was sufficient for redress by levying tariffs on the southern states and they were only wrong in their method of withdrawing from the Union before the Civil War.



Nope. 



> That being settled The Civil War then was the complete fault of the Union, and of the President. The consideration for the redress and the dissolution of the Union would have taken 2/3 of the states of the Union at the time, or the changing of the Constitution to allow unequal tariffs being levied on states would have taken the same? Is that your position? Very interesting position, it would require a state by state tariff inspection, and a complete reading of the levied tariff. as to the availability of the goods in all venues. I guess you have a good knowledge of all these facts., since I'm sure you feel the destruction of the southern states was justified, and the people killed were vile disgusting racist, not just people protecting their homes.



I've expressed no position on anything you've posted. 

Are you sure you're in the right thread?


----------



## 12icer (Jan 27, 2016)

I am giving an example of the idea you are promoting only, The collective vs the individual. If the collective has to treat ALL individuals equally according to one of the parts of the constitution you quoted, then it has to do it at all times to remain justified to exercise the power of the part involved, otherwise it is NOT following the agreement and voids the contract by default.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Your analogy doesn't hold because I am not a sovereign state whereas each of the member states of the union is a sovereign state. 

And you still haven't cited the language in the constitution that prohibits any of the states from unilaterally choosing to exit the unioni.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 27, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



My analogy is perfect as your entire argument is based on your conception of principal and agent. The *exact* relationship between the People and the State. Yet when we apply your assumptions of the Principal/Agent relationship to the People and the State......your conceptions break. If they were valid, they would work in either instance. 

You're cherry picking your conception of the the Principal Agent relationship, applying it when convenient to your argument *and ignoring it when it isn't. Just as you ignore James Madison who explicitly and repeatedly contradicts you. *Whereas my conception of the Principal Agent relationship 1) Works in both instances perfectly 2) Matches the description of the relationship by the Founders, including James Madison. 3) Matches history. 

Your argument breaks on James Madison. So you ignore him. It breaks on the People of the United States. So you ignore any mention of them. It breaks on the rulings of the Supreme Court. It breaks on history. 

These are not minor failings. 



> And you still haven't cited the language in the constitution that prohibits any of the states from unilaterally choosing to exit the unioni.



Of course I have: the Preamble. It defines the Principal: the People of the United States. Which an individual state isn't. 

You can't base your entire argument on the Principal/Agent relationship and then ignore the very conception of a Principal/Agent relationship. Your version of the Principal/Agent relationship is nonsense. It doesn't exist in our system of law. Its contradicted by application, consistent logic, and the Founders themselves. With James Madison not only destroying your argument, but doing so repeatedly, even citing the very fallacy you've fallen into:

*Confounding a single party with the Constitutional Compact of the United States. *

That's your fallacy. And the Father of the Constitution destroyed the entire argument generations ago.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 27, 2016)

12icer said:


> I am giving an example of the idea you are promoting only,



No, you told me that I've 'admitted' things I never mentioned, and brought up issues I've never addressed. And still haven't. The word 'tariff' didn't occur anywhere in my argument. Nor did I even mention the Civil War.

Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? Because your post reads like its pulled from the middle of a conversation that just isn't happening here.



> The collective vs the individual.



And by 'collective', you mean The People of the United States? As in 'We the People of the United States'?



> If the collective has to treat ALL individuals equally according to one of the parts of the constitution you quoted, then it has to do it at all times to remain justified to exercise the power of the part involved, otherwise it is NOT following the agreement and voids the contract by default.



Can you quote me saying any of that? Because you're kind of raising the Strawman Fallacy to an art form here. When did I say that the 'collective has to treat all individuals equally'?

As I recall claiming that the Several States can do anything they want to an 'individual state'. With no restrictions. Which is about as far as 'the collective has to treat all individuals equally' as you can get. The only 'equally' in my argument is that the Constitutional Compact binds individual States equally to the will of the Several States.

If we're going to have a conversation, its probably best that you respond to the arguments I'm actually making. Rather than whatever predigested rhetorical cud you were chewing before you got here.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



The preamble? Can you point out the specific language in the preamble that prohibits any of the member states from exiting the compact to which it voluntarily agreed?


----------



## Skylar (Jan 27, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



For the third time, 'We the People of the United States". 

The Preamble defines who the Principal is. Anyone who isn't the Principal can't modify the "Principal/Agent" relationship. An individual State isn't 'the People of the United States". 

As the 'Father of the Constitution' James Madison makes ridiculously clear when refuting your exact argument. About 180 years ago.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 27, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



How is "We the People of the United States" in any way a prohibition on any of the sovereign states from leaving the union they voluntarily entered?

The constitution was established between the sovereign states. It contains the rules of their compact. You cannot cite any rule prohibiting any state from choosing to exit the union. 

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states. Can you point to any prohibition on a state exiting? If not, then based upon the 10th amendment, the power to withdraw was retained by the states.


----------



## 12icer (Jan 27, 2016)

As in the previous post I POSTED It did not have an text inferring that you posted any of those things. Is simply an exercise in  inference of a totalitarian central  government with absolute control and no method of redress by less than a 2/3 coalition of states.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 28, 2016)

Centinel said:


> How is "We the People of the United States" in any way a prohibition on any of the sovereign states from leaving the union they voluntarily entered?



For the fourth time, pulled directly from the post you're replying to:

_The Preamble defines who the Principal is. Anyone who isn't the Principal can't modify the "Principal/Agent" relationship. An individual State isn't 'the People of the United States". 

As the 'Father of the Constitution' James Madison makes ridiculously clear when refuting your exact argument. About 180 years ago._

*You literally omitted the very answer you asked for from the post you are replying to. *You're just stalling now. You're stuck, your argument doesn't work, and you know it doesn't work.



> The constitution was established between the sovereign states. It contains the rules of their compact. You cannot cite any rule prohibiting any state from choosing to exit the union.



And an individual state isn't the 'Several States'. Just as you are not 'The People' in the People's compact with the State. You know this too. You're just stalling.

*Again, you're ignoring your entire basis of your own argument: the Principle/Agent relationship. *And you've already admitted the the Principle to the Constitution isn't an individual State. But the Several States. *Only the Principal of the Compact can alter it. And an individual state isn't the principal. *

You've ignored Madison, insisting you know better. You don't. You've ignored your own basis of argument, arbitrarily ignoring the Principal/Agent relationship whenever its inconvenient. You've ignored logic, abandoning your own standards of how the Principal Agent relationship works when we apply it to an explicitly analogous arrangement between the individual and the State. You've ignored history, where your assumptions have *never* been how our basis of law works.

Ever.

My standards are consistent, working between the Several States, the Federal Government and an individual State as well as it does between the People, the State government and the individual citizen. Madison, the Father of the Constitution, explicitly backs my argument and refutes yours. My argument is explicitly in line logic, as it works consistently between Principal-Agent relationships. And my standards are *exactly* how our system of law has worked for centuries.

And you ignore it all. *Are you starting to see why your perspective has nothing to do with the Constitution and our system of law.....nor ever has?*  You can choose to ignore the wild inconsistencies in your argument. But you can't make us ignore them.



> Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states. Can you point to any prohibition on a state exiting? If not, then based upon the 10th amendment, the power to withdraw was retained by the states.



Violating the compact isn't a power anyone possesses under the compact. As both the Preamble, Article V and James Madison make ludicriously clear, the Principal is the Several States. And an individual State cannot alter the compact anymore than an individual citizen can unilaterally change the law of their State. The individual state is subject to the will of the Several States.

If they want to leave, they're subject to the same standards as when they entered.

You're arguing that the compact of the constitution that binds all States equally....doesn't actually bind any State at all. As they can ignore any part of the Compact, even leave it at their will.

Nope. That's not our system of law either. Nor ever has been. You're ignoring the very concept of a Compact as well as the people that wrote the compact and entered into it. And imagining that you know better than all of them. You don't. There's a reason why your self contradicting assumptions have never been reflected in our law: they have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 28, 2016)

12icer said:


> As in the previous post I POSTED It did not have an text inferring that you posted any of those things. Is simply an exercise in  inference of a totalitarian central  government with absolute control and no method of redress by less than a 2/3 coalition of states.



Then why are you attributing to me positions I've never even mentioned, let alone taken. Again, you claimed to post MY admissions. Let me demonstrate with an excerpt from your post:



> SO for your purpose you admit that the United States violated the Constitution, and committed an offense that was sufficient for redress by levying tariffs on the southern states and they were only wrong in their method of withdrawing from the Union before the Civil War.



I 'admit', huh? I believe the words you were looking for were 'never even mentioned'. As demonstrated by this little confession:  ''it did not have an [sic] text inferring that you posted any of those things."

*Insisting I admitted something absolutely infers I've posted something on that topic. *Which we all agree, I still haven't. I've made no claims regarding 'tariff' or even mentioned the Civil War. That was all you citing yourself, apparently chewing your own rhetorical cud.

So, I ask again....are you sure you're posting in the right thread? As your post reads like part of another conversation that just isn't happening here.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 28, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Hi Centinel
This is like having the right to divorce, the choice to leave, so you never have to.
Because nobody wants to have to carry out that choice, then any issues that would cause a divorce
HAVE to be resolved so it doesn't force a divorce.

I would say this is part of the First Amendment about the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and to petition the Govt for a redress of grievances. If that is followed, and all grievances are redressed,
there is no reason to leave the union.

When you understand that you don't want a divorce, that means the grievances HAVE to be resolved.
I interpret this as part of the right to petition for a redress of grievances.
So no grievances can be left unredressed by this interpretation.

It is hypothetically a choice to break up, but within the commitment, there is an understanding
that's not a viable option so all states have to resolve the issues to keep the union together.

Also note that if Hawaii were to secede, for example, that would endanger security.
So it becomes an issue of state and national security if states break off from the United States.
That not only affects that state, but others as well.
So I would say it's part of security and equal protection of the laws.

That's a very loose interpretation and obviously not literal.

Even so, I still believe that all people and states reserve the right to leave;
you have to have that choice in order to have free choice and true liberty.

It may be hypothetical and not practical, but it should still be respected
as a choice, similar to never taking a spouse for granted just because
you assume you are married for life. If both partners recognize they
could choose to leave and marry someone else, then the commitment
to mutual agreed terms of the relationship is never taken for granted.
Those conditions must be met on a daily basis for the relationship
to work.  If people didn't have a choice to leave, then this too easily gets abusive.

Thank you,
Emily


----------



## Skylar (Jan 28, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> For the fourth time, pulled directly from the post you're replying to:
> 
> The Preamble defines who the Principal is. Anyone who isn't the Principal can't modify the "Principal/Agent" relationship. An individual State isn't 'the People of the United States".



Despite my repeated efforts, I don't actually see an answer to my question, so let me rephrase.

You contend that the several states (not a single state) are the principal and the federal government is their agent. For argument's sake, let us assume this. 

You also contend that the constitution forbids any state from unilaterally leaving the union.

The several states established the constitution between themselves. Their constitution describes the powers of the federal government and also describes the powers forbidden to any individual state (Art I, section 8 and Art I, section 10). 

So, does article I, section 8 delegate to congress any power to prevent any single state from leaving the union? I don't see any.

Does article I, section 10 prohibit any state from leaving the union? I don't see any.

If you think that the states wrote any language into their compact that prohibits states from exiting the union, please point out the language that containts that prohibition. (I'm looking words like "shall not" or "may not").


----------



## Centinel (Jan 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Violating the compact isn't a power anyone possesses under the compact.



A state leaving the union wouldn't be a violation of the compact. The compact contains no rule forbidding it, therefore it can't be a violation.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 28, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > For the fourth time, pulled directly from the post you're replying to:
> ...



Not only have you gotten answers, you're carefully omitted them from your citations of my posts...so you could ask the same questions again. See above regarding the Preamble defining who the Principal is.

You're ignoring answers.....as your argument is broken. Just as you ignored James Madison explictly contradicting you. Just as you ignored how the Principal Agent relationship works. Just as you've ignored logic when your conception of that relationship breaks when applied to the People and the State. Just as you've ignored history of our country which has never reflected your interpretation.

The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.



> You contend that the several states (not a single state) are the principal and the federal government is their agent. For argument's sake, let us assume this.
> 
> You also contend that the constitution forbids any state from unilaterally leaving the union.



If your conception of the Principal/Agent relationship is valid, *why does it break when applied to the People and the States? *Remember, the States are nothing more than vehicles for the authority of their people. If valid, it would work in both instances, rather than shattering in one as yours does.

*For example, James Madison's conception of the relationship works in both instances beautifully.* Yours falls to pieces.. How do you explain this wild inconsistency? So far your 'explanation' has been to ignore them. And then pretend that since you ignored them, the inconsistencies don't exist.

Alas, they still do. If any single party is the same thing as the Parties to the Compact......then why isn't that the case with the People and the State?


----------



## Centinel (Jan 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You seem to think that I am asking you a question about the principal-agent relationship. That is not my question. My question concerns the rules established by the states when they created their compact.

Does the compact forbid states from leaving?


----------



## Skylar (Jan 28, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



No, you're avoiding any mention of your own argument like it were on fire. Despite the Principal/Agent relationship being the beating heart of your entire argument. You know it doesn't work, so now you're refusing to discuss it.

But your gross misunderstanding of that relationship is at the root of your misconceptions about how the constitution works. As you confound the single party with the parties to the Constitutional Compact. *They aren't the same thing. As James Madison, the Father of the Consittution, explained approaching 2 centuries ago:*



			
				James Madison said:
			
		

> _"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. *The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. *The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. "_



You're ignoring who the Principal is. Who the decision maker is. Assuming that any individual state can interpret the constitution anyway they wish, isn't bound to the constitution and abandon it any time they wish, as an individual State is the Principal.* And you've fallen into the *exact* fallacy that Madison refuted. *

The Principal to the Constitutional Compact....is the People of the United States, exercising their authority through the Several States. And an individual State is neither the People of the United States nor the Several States. Rendering an individual state as inadequate to unilaterally abandon the compact as an individual citizen is to declare their home no longer a part of the State in which they live.

Its not a decision a single party has the authority to make. Refuting your entire argument.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



The more pressing argument is that there is nothing in the compact made by the several sovereign states that prohibits any state from leaving the union. You contend otherwise. Can you cite the relevant language that prohibits a state from leaving the union?


----------



## Skylar (Jan 28, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



'We the People of the United States' isn't a prohibition on a state leaving the union. It's not even a sentence. Please look at article I, section 10. This lists the prohibitions on the states. Nothing in there like "No state may leave the union".


----------



## Skylar (Jan 28, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



'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.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 28, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Centinel (Jan 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



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

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?


----------



## Skylar (Jan 28, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



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 (Jan 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



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 (Jan 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



None, as far as I can see.


----------



## Skylar (Jan 28, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



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 (Jan 28, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



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 (Jan 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



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 (Jan 28, 2016)

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 (Jan 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



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 (Jan 28, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



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 (Jan 28, 2016)

12icer said:


> 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 (Jan 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



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 (Jan 28, 2016)

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.


Skylar said:


> 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.  





			
				Skylar said:
			
		

> 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. 





			
				Skylar said:
			
		

> 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. 





			
				Skylar said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				Skylar said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 28, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



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 (Jan 29, 2016)

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 (Jan 29, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



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 (Jan 29, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> 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;
> ...



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 (Jan 29, 2016)

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


----------



## Skylar (Jan 29, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> 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 (Jan 29, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



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?


----------

