Dante: Substantive Due Process, Roe V Wade vs Health Insurance mandates

[emilynghiem]

[MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]

Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Due Process Clause

I looked up the relationship between Roe V Wade and "due process"

The technical argument/term is "substantive due process"
which combines what YOU were saying about "right to privacy" (not expressly
in the Constitution, but neither is "right to health care," or "Consent of the Governed")
with what I was saying about "due process" (ie depriving people of liberty before proving any crime had been committed)

Now, my question is can this argument of "substantive due process" (used to defend free choice of "reproductive health")
be applied to argue, similarly, that the federal govt has no right to impose a penalty/fine
by taxation based on someone's BELIEF, CHOICE or DECISION about "health care"?

If this "substantive due process" argument can be used to rule that the
decision for women to have abortions is PRIVATE and not for govt regulation,
what about the decision to "pay for one's own health care other ways besides insurance"?

(NOTE: I can understand why the prolife opponents of ACA cannot make this argument if they do not recognize Roe V Wade. is THAT why this legal argument is not pursued???)

Dante if you were on the Supreme Court, and this case came to you, using Roe V Wade to strike down the federal mandates based on "substantive due process"
what would you argue to distinguish the two cases? Thanks!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The legal argument has NEVER been that there is a 'right' to healthcare.

Your "substantive due process" argument

Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Due Process Clause -
Roe vs. Wade

Roe vs. Wade, 1973, utilized substantive due process to declare a Texas law banning abortions unconstitutional. The Court decided that there is a right to privacy guaranteed by the Due Process Clause, referring to the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, not the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause, meaning that it was not fair for the government to tell a woman what she could or could not do regarding her own pregnancy.

Many people have criticized this decision as a huge judicial overreach. This ruling affected laws in 46 states that had various degrees of bans on abortion. Clearly, the majority of the population wanted the practice outlawed, but the Court overruled it.

Read more: Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Due Process Clause

"...meaning that it was not fair for the government to tell a woman what she could or could not do regarding her own pregnancy."

The federal govt has the power to impose a penalty/fine by taxation on somebody's "choice" to NOT purchase health care. In the law it is called a "shared responsibility payment"


"what about the decision to 'pay for one's own health care other ways besides insurance?'" - We are a nation of laws. Congress wrote and passed a law. The SCOTUS ruled the law constitutional under the powers of the Congress. This has nothing to do with pro life.

I highly doubt the court would take a case based on using Roe V Wade to strike down the federal mandates based on "substantive due process" -- it's nonsensical [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]
If the govt cannot tell a woman what to do with her pregnancy
including ABORT A FETUS WHICH IS "POSSIBLY" FEELING THINGS AS A PERSON

why can federal mandates tell people "how to pay for health care"
which is NOT a crime and commits NO HARM to others if people
choose to (a) pay for their own health care freely with or without insurance
and (b) choose to provide free health care to others through spiritual healing, for example.

So if govt cannot treat "a choice of abortion as a violation of law" and punish or ban it,
why is the CHOICE of health care being penalized or discriminated against by fining it?

Do you see any parallel here with CHOICE and govt intrusion/regulation?

Dante if voters AGREE to make the limit on choice of abortion at 3 months,
then yes, govt can regulate limits on this choice.

But in the case of choice of paying for health care,
people did NOT agree to these regulations requiring the ONLY choice of paying
to be "health insurance" to avoid penalties (unless you are Amish or a SPECIFIC
religious group, which is govt regulating or discriminating on the basis of RELIGION)

Dante, I agree that if people AGREE to restrictions on abortion, gun control, etc, then laws can be made because the public CONSENTED to them.

Where people DISAGREE, then it is INTRUSION and that is why people protest AGAINST:
(a) govt intrusion/regulation on free choice of abortion (within 3 month limit)
(b) govt intrusion/regulation on right to bear arms (within mental health/criminal restrictions)
(c) and now govt intrusion/regulation on FREE CHOICE to pay for health care

Dante do you see the parallel issue of "depriving liberty without due process"
in these areas?

Overall, if FREE CHOICE TRUMPS aborting a fetus within the 3 month limit
(which HAS been shown to cause harm to mental or physical health in over 50%
of the cases of abortion, some argue up to 85%, so it DOES pose a RISK)
* what is the RISK or HARM caused by someone paying for their own health care?
* And paying for health care of others through CHARITY instead of through federal govt?

Where is the harm and imminent danger or damage in CHOOSING to pay for health care of oneself and others WITHOUT going through federal govt or insurance mandates?

Why should this CHOICE be penalized and not the choice of abortion which RISKS HARM?

The legal argument has NEVER been that there is a 'right' to healthcare.

Your "substantive due process" argument

Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Due Process Clause -
Roe vs. Wade

Roe vs. Wade, 1973, utilized substantive due process to declare a Texas law banning abortions unconstitutional. The Court decided that there is a right to privacy guaranteed by the Due Process Clause, referring to the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, not the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause, meaning that it was not fair for the government to tell a woman what she could or could not do regarding her own pregnancy.

Many people have criticized this decision as a huge judicial overreach. This ruling affected laws in 46 states that had various degrees of bans on abortion. Clearly, the majority of the population wanted the practice outlawed, but the Court overruled it.

Read more: Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Due Process Clause

"...meaning that it was not fair for the government to tell a woman what she could or could not do regarding her own pregnancy."

The federal govt has the power to impose a penalty/fine by taxation on somebody's "choice" to NOT purchase health care. In the law it is called a "shared responsibility payment"


"what about the decision to 'pay for one's own health care other ways besides insurance?'" - We are a nation of laws. Congress wrote and passed a law. The SCOTUS ruled the law constitutional under the powers of the Congress. This has nothing to do with pro life.

I highly doubt the court would take a case based on using Roe V Wade to strike down the federal mandates based on "substantive due process" -- it's nonsensical [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

PS what I find nonsensical seems to be mutual:
the Conservatives who find this Roe V Wade argument "nonsensical" argue
that the Courts "recognized" a "right to privacy" NOT in the Constitution and used it to argue this case.
So they DON'T recognize the "right to privacy" as inherent and that's why they disagree with this ruling.

Now you say the same argument used for defending "freedom of choice in health care" is nonsensical, too.
You don't recognize this freedom as a given, the same way Conservatives didn't recognize the "inherent rights defended" in Roe V. Wade.

So which way is it, Dante

Can we have BOTH liberals saying Roe V Wade makes sense for "right to privacy" APPLIED TO ABORTION ONLY
but is "nonsensical" when it applies to "free choice of health care" in general
(which can be argued poses little risk of harm compared with abortion)

Can we have Conservatives arguing Roe V Wade is "nonsensical"
but then demand "free choice" when it comes to health care choices.

This is what I want to bring out and discuss, how to come to terms with this selective enforcement of
"free choice" in some cases and not others, where sides COMPETE to push their interpretation "when it suits them"
but BLOCK or DISMISS "similar arguments" when it suits their opponents. Isn't this strange if people cannot see this bias is going on?

Thanks, Dante
consider yourself rep'd in advance
of actually getting somewhere with this discussion
which begs to be addressed as the cause of divide between the parties

if we cannot recognize, and either reconcile or separate the
political beliefs, recognized by one party but not the other,
how can we ever manage intelligent fair discussion of the issues
and how to resolve them and not impose exclusive policies that discriminate by creed

What you call "nonsensical" shows the limit on your belief system.
And Conservatives have equal limits on what they believe or it's "nonsensical" to them

We NEED to have these discussions and sort out where people
and parties have LIMIITS to their beliefs and RESPECT these.
then we can separate along those lines to protect equal beliefs based on people's NATURAL limits
that cannot be helped or changed.

Thank you for this. Your honest feedback is what we need, and this can be sorted out on a local and national level.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Thanks [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

"If the govt cannot tell a woman what to do with her pregnancy
including ABORT A FETUS WHICH IS "POSSIBLY" FEELING THINGS AS A PERSON" -- A person needs a developed brain. It is a fetus inside the woman's body. End of story.


"why can federal mandates tell people "how to pay for health care"
which is NOT a crime and commits NO HARM to others if people
choose to (a) pay for their own health care freely with or without insurance
and (b) choose to provide free health care to others through spiritual healing, for example." - It is within the powers granted the Congress' to do so. That is why. (read what Chief Justice Roberts wrote)

We are not colonies. We have elected representation, which passes laws in our name. We have the choice to change government and that is how we can change laws we do not like.

Not liking a law and refusing to recognize it cannot hide behind a right to privacy. That was not an argument I saw made to the court.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

"If the govt cannot tell a woman what to do with her pregnancy
including ABORT A FETUS WHICH IS "POSSIBLY" FEELING THINGS AS A PERSON" -- A person needs a developed brain. It is a fetus inside the woman's body. End of story.


"why can federal mandates tell people "how to pay for health care"
which is NOT a crime and commits NO HARM to others if people
choose to (a) pay for their own health care freely with or without insurance
and (b) choose to provide free health care to others through spiritual healing, for example." - It is within the powers granted the Congress' to do so. That is why. (read what Chief Justice Roberts wrote)

We are not colonies. We have elected representation, which passes laws in our name. We have the choice to change government and that is how we can change laws we do not like.

Not liking a law and refusing to recognize it cannot hide behind a right to privacy. That was not an argument I saw made to the court.

(A). Thanks for a precise clarification.

Another person argued that the minute conception occurs, there is unique DNA so that is a unique individual, and believes in defending life at that point.

So how can Govt choose to enforce your definition of a person having a working brain,
vs. someone else's belief that each individual is unique upon conception?
Only by CONSENSUS could govt make a law since both people's beliefs should be equal.

I probably tend closer toward your interpretation of what constitutes a person legally;
however by the First and Fourteenth Amendments I am not going to impose MY standard through law AGAINST THE BELIEFS of other citizens I respect equally with other beliefs.

So even though I FAVOR your definition, I would still enforce CONSENSUS as the basis of law on such decisions since people's beliefs are involved and affected.

It does make sense to me that if a person has an impaired brain, or a baby is born with almost no brain function, that person does not count as a person of legal competence, but requires someone to make legal decisions on behalf of such a person.

But even when parents or guardians have legal jurisdiction over a person, they do not have the right to terminate their life at will; so that may be the reasoning people use who do not agree with aborting by gender, by "inability to pay costs" etc.

If legal guardians do not have the automatic right to terminate the life of a Down's Syndrome child or adult, then I can understand why people would argue the same for a fetus that is not able to communicate yet, and is under the legal control of the parent who can choose to abort based on not wanting to care for a child with mental retardation.

Thank you for clarifying this, Dante.
I can agree with points on both sides, using this criteria you offer, and still recommend a consensus on policy and not using govt/majority rule/court rulings to impose one interpretation of law or person over any other person's beliefs about this issue.

This is great, thank you! another rep for you!

Note: I've had a friend who felt their full consciousness while they were brain damaged in a coma. Just because someone cannot communicate due to impaired brain function, does not mean they don't have a will, just because it cannot be expressed and proven by law.

So this is where "faith based or spiritually based" relations come in, which govt does NOT have the right to legislate or regulate for people.

Because there are spiritual beliefs and/or connections with other people, then conflicts over the guardianship or decisions inherently involve spiritual/religious beliefs especially regarding life/death/termination. So that is where I argue that govt has the capacity to ENDORSE a consensus decision made by the people affected, but not the authority to IMPOSE a decision FOR people. The people must agree and cannot abuse govt to endorse "their beliefs" over other people's or it's not equal religious freedom/protection of the law.

If people DISAGREE with this standard on beliefs, that is ANOTHER level of "belief"
that bleeds into the area of "political beliefs" crossing the line between religion/govt.

I believe this should be addressed in resolving issues with ACA in (B) below:

(B). No, from what I understand the Court ruling was on the bill "argued as a tax."
But it was not passed as a tax. So this is not consistent. the interpretation was changed, so there is not a consensus on this law.
Had it been "argued as a tax" when presented through Congress, it would not have passed. (This can be proven: we can go back to the "same people" who voted before, and ask had this same bill been presented as interpreted by the Court as a tax, would your vote change, and recount the votes. Maybe that's what we need to do: call back the original Congress, and take the vote again)

Even as it was, the vote was split along party or "political beliefs" which I found was the key issue to address: The assessment of the conflict I agree best explains why it is not getting resolved is that this "right to health care argument" constitutes a "political belief."

If we don't address that, all other arguments will go in circles because of disagreements over the 'spirit of the law' -- while if we DO address "political beliefs" head on, then ALL other issues (abortion, gun laws, immigration, marriage laws) will ALSO be resolved by the same solutions. So it is financially and politically expedient to address "political beliefs."

Because "political beliefs" cross the line between religion and public state laws/govt,
this is not agreed upon how to handle conflicts over this level of beliefs
that seem inseparable from govt, unlike other forms of beliefs that can be separated.

What is up to the will of the people to decide:
Does the First and Fourteenth Amendment protect the public from discrimination on the basis of political beliefs (counting under
religious freedom or creed)

If not, then I will strongly urge that a Constitutional Amendment be added addressing laws that involve "political beliefs."

As is, Dante, people do not agree how to handle political beliefs, but keep trying to use majority rule, etc., and keep "running over each other's beliefs."

Sure Dante, if people agree to this method of "majority rule" to establish the side THEY believe in, we can keep using this method.

But Dante I DO NOT AGREE or BELIEVE in this method. I have documentation to show that mediation/consensus works and can be applied, in keeping with my beliefs about "consent of the governed" and "equal protection of the laws."

At this point, I will consult with various political and party constituents, and propose a Constitutional conference on addressing political beliefs, and if an Amendment is required.

Thank you, [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]
Your answers are so objective, they help me to clarify BOTH sides, not just the side you defend which I favor equally if not more.
I tend to seek the more secular universal language for govt laws, so you help me with your finer ability to clarify point by point.
I hope that you will consider a larger role in consulting on Constitutional points and interpretations, as more groups organize to form conferences online.
I am not the only one supporting such a series or networks of conventions, and would highly recommend you and more people like you to be involved.
We need to stay objective, especially where emotional and personal reactions run high
in areas of religious and political beliefs that have been imposed on each other and not treated with equal respect.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Thanks [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

"If the govt cannot tell a woman what to do with her pregnancy
including ABORT A FETUS WHICH IS "POSSIBLY" FEELING THINGS AS A PERSON" -- A person needs a developed brain. It is a fetus inside the woman's body. End of story.


"why can federal mandates tell people "how to pay for health care"
which is NOT a crime and commits NO HARM to others if people
choose to (a) pay for their own health care freely with or without insurance
and (b) choose to provide free health care to others through spiritual healing, for example." - It is within the powers granted the Congress' to do so. That is why. (read what Chief Justice Roberts wrote)

We are not colonies. We have elected representation, which passes laws in our name. We have the choice to change government and that is how we can change laws we do not like.

Not liking a law and refusing to recognize it cannot hide behind a right to privacy. That was not an argument I saw made to the court.

(A). Thanks for a precise clarification.

Another person argued that the minute conception occurs, there is unique DNA so that is a unique individual, and believes in defending life at that point.

So how can Govt choose to enforce your definition of a person having a working brain,
vs. someone else's belief that each individual is unique upon conception?
Only by CONSENSUS could govt make a law since both people's beliefs should be equal.

I probably tend closer toward your interpretation of what constitutes a person legally;
however by the First and Fourteenth Amendments I am not going to impose MY standard through law AGAINST THE BELIEFS of other citizens I respect equally with other beliefs.

So even though I FAVOR your definition, I would still enforce CONSENSUS as the basis of law on such decisions since people's beliefs are involved and affected.

It does make sense to me that if a person has an impaired brain, or a baby is born with almost no brain function, that person does not count as a person of legal competence, but requires someone to make legal decisions on behalf of such a person.

But even when parents or guardians have legal jurisdiction over a person, they do not have the right to terminate their life at will; so that may be the reasoning people use who do not agree with aborting by gender, by "inability to pay costs" etc.

If legal guardians do not have the automatic right to terminate the life of a Down's Syndrome child or adult, then I can understand why people would argue the same for a fetus that is not able to communicate yet, and is under the legal control of the parent who can choose to abort based on not wanting to care for a child with mental retardation.

Thank you for clarifying this, Dante.
I can agree with points on both sides, using this criteria you offer, and still recommend a consensus on policy and not using govt/majority rule/court rulings to impose one interpretation of law or person over any other person's beliefs about this issue.

This is great, thank you! another rep for you!

Note: I've had a friend who felt their full consciousness while they were brain damaged in a coma. Just because someone cannot communicate due to impaired brain function, does not mean they don't have a will, just because it cannot be expressed and proven by law.

So this is where "faith based or spiritually based" relations come in, which govt does NOT have the right to legislate or regulate for people.

Because there are spiritual beliefs and/or connections with other people, then conflicts over the guardianship or decisions inherently involve spiritual/religious beliefs especially regarding life/death/termination. So that is where I argue that govt has the capacity to ENDORSE a consensus decision made by the people affected, but not the authority to IMPOSE a decision FOR people. The people must agree and cannot abuse govt to endorse "their beliefs" over other people's or it's not equal religious freedom/protection of the law.

If people DISAGREE with this standard on beliefs, that is ANOTHER level of "belief"
that bleeds into the area of "political beliefs" crossing the line between religion/govt.

I believe this should be addressed in resolving issues with ACA in (B) below:

(B). No, from what I understand the Court ruling was on the bill "argued as a tax."
But it was not passed as a tax. So this is not consistent. the interpretation was changed, so there is not a consensus on this law.
Had it been "argued as a tax" when presented through Congress, it would not have passed. (This can be proven: we can go back to the "same people" who voted before, and ask had this same bill been presented as interpreted by the Court as a tax, would your vote change, and recount the votes. Maybe that's what we need to do: call back the original Congress, and take the vote again)

Even as it was, the vote was split along party or "political beliefs" which I found was the key issue to address: The assessment of the conflict I agree best explains why it is not getting resolved is that this "right to health care argument" constitutes a "political belief."

If we don't address that, all other arguments will go in circles because of disagreements over the 'spirit of the law' -- while if we DO address "political beliefs" head on, then ALL other issues (abortion, gun laws, immigration, marriage laws) will ALSO be resolved by the same solutions. So it is financially and politically expedient to address "political beliefs."

Because "political beliefs" cross the line between religion and public state laws/govt,
this is not agreed upon how to handle conflicts over this level of beliefs
that seem inseparable from govt, unlike other forms of beliefs that can be separated.

What is up to the will of the people to decide:
Does the First and Fourteenth Amendment protect the public from discrimination on the basis of political beliefs (counting under
religious freedom or creed)

If not, then I will strongly urge that a Constitutional Amendment be added addressing laws that involve "political beliefs."

As is, Dante, people do not agree how to handle political beliefs, but keep trying to use majority rule, etc., and keep "running over each other's beliefs."

Sure Dante, if people agree to this method of "majority rule" to establish the side THEY believe in, we can keep using this method.

But Dante I DO NOT AGREE or BELIEVE in this method. I have documentation to show that mediation/consensus works and can be applied, in keeping with my beliefs about "consent of the governed" and "equal protection of the laws."

At this point, I will consult with various political and party constituents, and propose a Constitutional conference on addressing political beliefs, and if an Amendment is required.

Thank you, [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]
Your answers are so objective, they help me to clarify BOTH sides, not just the side you defend which I favor equally if not more.
I tend to seek the more secular universal language for govt laws, so you help me with your finer ability to clarify point by point.
I hope that you will consider a larger role in consulting on Constitutional points and interpretations, as more groups organize to form conferences online.
I am not the only one supporting such a series or networks of conventions, and would highly recommend you and more people like you to be involved.
We need to stay objective, especially where emotional and personal reactions run high
in areas of religious and political beliefs that have been imposed on each other and not treated with equal respect.

A.) Strands of dna unique or not, do not a person make.

DNA is NOT an individual person. Without a brain stem and a developed brain there is NO person. A 'person' is a human being who is self aware.

Your "Another person" who argued about conception has an opinion based on religious beliefs and not science or facts.

-------

Government choose all the time. It's called 'how the world works.' Congress can make laws without consensus on definitions of words. Congress can define what it wants and then the courts get involved. It's how our system is supposed to work. All beliefs are NOT equal nor should government have any say in that. Read the US Constitution on that one.

You keep bringing government into regulating/enforcing religious beliefs.

A fetus versus a person

---

I believe we as a species will evolve enough one day, when the need arises and we will dump this religious belief bullshit

D

 

[emilynghiem]

A.) Strands of dna unique or not, do not a person make.

DNA is NOT an individual person. Without a brain stem and a developed brain there is NO person. A 'person' is a human being who is self aware.

Your "Another person" who argued about conception has an opinion based on religious beliefs and not science or facts.

YES exactly since it is a belief:
* it can neither be IMPOSED by govt because it is a belief
*NOR CAN IT BE IMPOSED UPON by govt because it is a belief*
It can be "defended from infringement" but cannot be imposed by govt

So laws must be so neutral (or well written to focus on points of agreement
from other angles that don't have conflicts) they NEITHER IMPOSE NOR INFRINGE
on either
* your belief/criteria YOU BELIEVE is fair
(some people may not believe yours is fair but be even more liberal than you
and think YOU are imposing on them, who knows)
* OTHER people's beliefs/criteria THEY BELIEVE is fair

Both are beliefs.
So both must be equally accommodated and protected when making laws.

And I AGREE with you, NEITHER can the other view be imposed by govt
since YOU do not believe that is the fair place to draw the line.

I also believe since "prochoice" allows both beliefs in prochoice and prolife
(but not vice versa) then the default position will be starting from "prochoice"

Then if people still disagree on how to prevent problems they don't agree with,
then they work from a "prochoice" position to address and resolve conflicts,
and form a consensus on policies. These may be outside govt, such as
agreeing to support education to prevent rape and relationship abuse
so there is an agreed goal to prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

That agreement can be outside govt, and still part of the process
of "redressing grievances" between people over Roe V Wade and abortion policies
in order to reach a CONSENSUS on abortion and related laws.

-------

Government choose all the time. It's called 'how the world works.' Congress can make laws without consensus on definitions of words. Congress can define what it wants and then the courts get involved. It's how our system is supposed to work. All beliefs are NOT equal nor should government have any say in that. Read the US Constitution on that one.

1. I understand this is what is used, what I am saying is we are now at a higher stage of political and social development in democracy and government.

Now we CAN have more laws written by consensus to prevent unnecessary
waste over conflicts.

Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service (Public Law 96-303)
is a WELL WRITTEN law passed Unanimously by Consensus.
I posted it here for referencing: ethics-commission.net

Just because YOUR beliefs are not affected, and laws were passed in the past this way,
doesn't mean violations aren't going on that need to be corrected and prevented.

RAPE and WAR happen all the time, and this is 'what goes on in the world'
but if my standards are different and I believe it can be prevented
[MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] I have the right to exercise my beliefs and not be
imposed upon by govt practices that PREVENT me from doing so.

I DO have to prove publicly and/or legally that change is necessary
to protect equal beliefs.

You are right, not all beliefs are equal.
But you and Congress do not have the right to make or push laws
that violate the beliefs of others
* JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THAT'S THE BEST WE COULD DO
* THAT'S JUST THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS
* CONGRESS CAN PASS WHATEVER BY MAJORITY
AND LET THE COURT SORT IT OUT AFTERWARD

I agree this method/standard "has been used in the past"
but essentially Dante:
A. if you/Congress pass/enforce a law that excludes others by their beliefs,
this is NOT equal protection of the laws; that excluded/oppressed person(s)
has to pay legal or other expenses to PETITION to RESTORE/DEFEND their
beliefs.
B. the people (like you) whose beliefs WERE represented DO NOT have
this burden, so you are not equally protected as the other, but
DISCRIMINATION by CREED is happening by the Govt (and by the
people colluding with govt to impose and exclude against the creed of others)
C. the correct way to uphold Equal Protections and prevent Discrimination by Creed
is to RESOLVE the conflicts over beliefs BEFORE THE BILL IS PASSED.
BEFORE it is passed, BOTH SIDES ARE EQUAL.
No one is infringed upon yet by that proposed law in question.
Once the law passes with a BIAS in it favoring one side's BELIEFS over another,
then the govt has been used to discriminate and not provide equal protection for all.
D. NOTE: it is NOT against the law and does NOT require
additional legislation to form a consensus on laws before passing them.
The Code of Ethics was passed unanimously, so other laws can be also!
It is not impossible, not against procedures, and just makes more sense to avoid conflict
and correct as many objections as can be found in advance to avoid future problems.
=============================
Dante I disagree by the Code of Ethics for Govt Service:

IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

It COSTS TAXPAYERS LESS if Congress/legislators would agree on legislation
before passing it, by resolving conflicts and writing better laws without problems,
INSTEAD of doing what you said and just "passing whatever and let Courts
rule on it afterward"

Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

What standard of law or ethics is govt/Congress enforcing if the laws passed
have Constitutional conflicts in them including infringing and invalidating the
beliefs and objections of others? How is that "equal protection of representation"

V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.

X. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

by resolving all "conflicts of interest" politically or financially with these bills,
we can eliminate any political abuse or corruption.

If federal employees are called to 'expose corruption wherever discovered"
why not enforce this and hold govt to this standard of law and ethics?
==================================

You keep bringing government into regulating/enforcing religious beliefs.

A fetus versus a person

---

I believe we as a species will evolve enough one day, when the need arises and we will dump this religious belief bullshit
D

I am saying it's the other way around.
I'm not bringing govt into these beliefs,
but the beliefs were brought into govt by making laws
about abortion, health care, etc.

When you make laws that violate people's beliefs,
even ones you and I don't hold and don't agree with but others do,
that is crossing the line between religion and public policy,
church and state.

I listen to the people whose beliefs were infringed upon,
to find out what does it take to correct the breach, the overreach, the conflict.

Dante, especially if I do not have those people's beliefs,
I need to be more careful to include their input so the
laws I support DO NOT have some bias I wasn't aware of.

I didn't cause this, Dante.

When Obama and Democrats pushed the ACA to pass,
knowing it had objections to it, they ended up imposing
federal laws that infringed on people's beliefs they did NOT treat as equal.

Like you, they expected to let "Courts" decide on it.

That's not equal.
Because the beliefs in "right to health care through govt"
are now treated as the default if you consider the bill to be a valid law.

So passing this as law essentially endorsed a "national belief or religion"
that supporter like you believe in imposing against the beliefs of others.

I understand you do not believe those beliefs are valid or infringed upon,
but the "democratic process worked"

The Constitutionalists like me believe
a. the process was flawed and subverted by ethics violations and conflicts
of interests by making deals for financial and political gain, and not
based SOLELY on the content of the law as representing/serving the people
b. the content and process of the law skipped or violated Constitutional steps
necessary for the lawful process to work and represent the people
c. beliefs were violated by this law and the passing of it,
so it was not in keeping with Constitutional duty to "represent the public"
but discriminates by "representing party interests and political beliefs of one group
over another" so again it violates Constitutional duty and the Code of Ethics on top.

Dante just because I bring up these issues
doesn't mean they weren't already being violated.

I just brought them to your attention.
The lines were crossed between beliefs and public policy.

With beliefs about govt and role of govt in health care,
there is no way to make such a law without involving
"political beliefs" -- so of course it crosses the line
between religious beliefs and govt/law.

Therefore, I hold "consensus" as the standard
if such laws are made that cross that line.

Either agree on the laws if these are made through govt,
or separate and have separate political organizations and
networks to run programs with separate funding and policies
so people's beliefs are equally protected and can be exercised in full
without infringing on the beliefs of others with equal freedom to do the same.

Dante if you don't believe in my standard of govt
and I don't believe in yours, that's even more reason
we should keep govt to areas we both agree on,
and move the rest we don't to other venues and not public law if we believe differently.

We would solve the problem and have no more issues
with imposing govt into religion or religion into govt
if we could separate out and only reserve govt for areas of consensus.

No more of these conflicts.

We could resolve everything in private, with freedom to keep to our own beliefs, and just
make laws/govt where it reflects agreement among the public and not impose either way.

 

[Michelle420]

The government is full of human beings socially constructing beliefs.

Facts are changeable upon new discoveries.

What people perceive and label a fact is a human perception based on belief about perceived facts.

If a caveman projected into today's date and saw a traffic jam in la for 5 minutes and went back to describe it to the cave friends, it might be described as giant monsters eating humans who looked angry.

That's a fact to the caveman

We don't know everything about the universe or life or death.

We only know what human beings conclude thus far based on their own thinking.

Government is just another tribe socially constructed for some societal order.

Both Science & Religion share the birth of their concepts by humans need to form social order and social construction.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

A.) Strands of dna unique or not, do not a person make.

DNA is NOT an individual person. Without a brain stem and a developed brain there is NO person. A 'person' is a human being who is self aware.

Your "Another person" who argued about conception has an opinion based on religious beliefs and not science or facts.

1) YES exactly since it is a belief:
* it can neither be IMPOSED by govt because it is a belief
*NOR CAN IT BE IMPOSED UPON by govt because it is a belief*
It can be "defended from infringement" but cannot be imposed by govt

So laws must be so neutral (or well written to focus on points of agreement
from other angles that don't have conflicts) they NEITHER IMPOSE NOR INFRINGE
on either
* your belief/criteria YOU BELIEVE is fair
(some people may not believe yours is fair but be even more liberal than you
and think YOU are imposing on them, who knows)
* OTHER people's beliefs/criteria THEY BELIEVE is fair

Both are beliefs.
So both must be equally accommodated and protected when making laws.

1a) And I AGREE with you, NEITHER can the other view be imposed by govt
since YOU do not believe that is the fair place to draw the line.

I also believe since "prochoice" allows both beliefs in prochoice and prolife
(but not vice versa) then the default position will be starting from "prochoice"

Then if people still disagree on how to prevent problems they don't agree with,
then they work from a "prochoice" position to address and resolve conflicts,
and form a consensus on policies. These may be outside govt, such as
agreeing to support education to prevent rape and relationship abuse
so there is an agreed goal to prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

That agreement can be outside govt, and still part of the process
of "redressing grievances" between people over Roe V Wade and abortion policies
in order to reach a CONSENSUS on abortion and related laws.

...


...

1) Ahem, the religious beliefs of people do not and should not have to "be equally accommodated and protected when making laws." Why? Because that would be government dictating and imposing religious beliefs upon people through law.

conflicts are why laws are written and enacted.

secular beliefs (outside of religion/in the real/secular world) are NEVER truly equally accommodated and protected when making laws, unless there is no conflict or opposition to a majority/consensus. There is/or should be debate and persuasion before consensus/compromise/agreement is achieved on what is enacted into law. We have a representative form of government and and this is how it works with the people we elect to represent us.

1a) The view that we should become a representative democracy within a republican form of government won the argument and 'federalism' won the day for ratification of the US Constitution. Others believed that was not the way to go. It's how things work.

A 'CONSENSUS on abortion and related laws' will never be achieved because the 'prolife' movement is against consensus just as the Tea Party is against any consensus on anything involving Democrats and/or the President, or just as HAMAS is against a consensus on allowing Israel to exist.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

...

Government choose all the time. It's called 'how the world works.' Congress can make laws without consensus on definitions of words. Congress can define what it wants and then the courts get involved. It's how our system is supposed to work. All beliefs are NOT equal nor should government have any say in that. Read the US Constitution on that one.

1. I understand this is what is used, what I am saying is we are now at a higher stage of political and social development in democracy and government.

Now we CAN have more laws written by consensus to prevent unnecessary
waste over conflicts.

Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service (Public Law 96-303)
is a WELL WRITTEN law passed Unanimously by Consensus.
I posted it here for referencing: ethics-commission.net

Just because YOUR beliefs are not affected, and laws were passed in the past this way,
doesn't mean violations aren't going on that need to be corrected and prevented.

RAPE and WAR happen all the time, and this is 'what goes on in the world'
but if my standards are different and I believe it can be prevented
[MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] I have the right to exercise my beliefs and not be
imposed upon by govt practices that PREVENT me from doing so.

I DO have to prove publicly and/or legally that change is necessary
to protect equal beliefs.

You are right, not all beliefs are equal.
But you and Congress do not have the right to make or push laws
that violate the beliefs of others
* JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THAT'S THE BEST WE COULD DO
* THAT'S JUST THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS
* CONGRESS CAN PASS WHATEVER BY MAJORITY
AND LET THE COURT SORT IT OUT AFTERWARD

I agree this method/standard "has been used in the past"
but essentially Dante:
A. if you/Congress pass/enforce a law that excludes others by their beliefs,
this is NOT equal protection of the laws; that excluded/oppressed person(s)
has to pay legal or other expenses to PETITION to RESTORE/DEFEND their
beliefs.
B. the people (like you) whose beliefs WERE represented DO NOT have
this burden, so you are not equally protected as the other, but
DISCRIMINATION by CREED is happening by the Govt (and by the
people colluding with govt to impose and exclude against the creed of others)
C. the correct way to uphold Equal Protections and prevent Discrimination by Creed
is to RESOLVE the conflicts over beliefs BEFORE THE BILL IS PASSED.
BEFORE it is passed, BOTH SIDES ARE EQUAL.
No one is infringed upon yet by that proposed law in question.
Once the law passes with a BIAS in it favoring one side's BELIEFS over another,
then the govt has been used to discriminate and not provide equal protection for all.
D. NOTE: it is NOT against the law and does NOT require
additional legislation to form a consensus on laws before passing them.
The Code of Ethics was passed unanimously, so other laws can be also!
It is not impossible, not against procedures, and just makes more sense to avoid conflict
and correct as many objections as can be found in advance to avoid future problems.
=============================
Dante I disagree by the Code of Ethics for Govt Service:

IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

It COSTS TAXPAYERS LESS if Congress/legislators would agree on legislation
before passing it, by resolving conflicts and writing better laws without problems,
INSTEAD of doing what you said and just "passing whatever and let Courts
rule on it afterward"

Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

What standard of law or ethics is govt/Congress enforcing if the laws passed
have Constitutional conflicts in them including infringing and invalidating the
beliefs and objections of others? How is that "equal protection of representation"

V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.

X. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

by resolving all "conflicts of interest" politically or financially with these bills,
we can eliminate any political abuse or corruption.

If federal employees are called to 'expose corruption wherever discovered"
why not enforce this and hold govt to this standard of law and ethics?

...

...

A 'Code of Ethics for Government Service' is for employees of government agencies, not legislators whose job descriptions include resolution of conflicts. Most any proposal put forth in a legislature would pit one group's interests against those of others. This is why we have legislatures and laws: competing interests.

Rape is illegal, war is not. Neither can be wholly prevented. Classify all war as illegal and it would be like any other crime, punishable yet not preventable.

Again: Beliefs are not equal.

"The Code of Ethics was passed unanimously, so other laws can be also!"

Codes of ethics govern how one should behave, and so how laws are proposed, debated, written, and enacted can be and is/are governed by codes of ethics. This does not govern and guarantee equality or result and more...

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] thanks again for working with me to edit down
where the points of conflict occur.

1.

1) Ahem, the religious beliefs of people do not and should not have to "be equally accommodated and protected when making laws." Why? Because that would be government dictating and imposing religious beliefs upon people through law.

conflicts are why laws are written and enacted.

1. Yes, agreed, that the point is for govt NOT to dictate and impose religious beliefs upon people through law. What I mean by accommodating does NOT mean imposing someone else's beliefs onto other people, but the Opposite of this: to make sure govt policy does not inadvertently IMPOSE such a bias, but Prevents from discriminating against any group with its language. what I mean by accommodating those objections or issues is to resolve any conflict with the language that would otherwise impose either way.

Example a. the first amendment states free exercise of religion.
If everyone agrees this includes protecting atheists from imposition of christianity,
we can leave it worded as is. But if one group pushes for a state law to specify not imposing christianity on atheists, and another group pushes for a state law to specify not imposing atheist biases on christians, then people will fight over how that law is worded.
so the conflict is resolved by either using neutral language such as religion or beliefs,
or agreeing that the first amendment already covers this and doesn't require new laws.
that is an example of what I mean by accommodating; I mean not to use language that favors christians over atheists or favors atheists over christians
because AS YOU SAY this WOULD be govt dictating particular reiigions or beliefs.
I mean the same thing you said to try to Avoid this.

so I listen to when either christians or atheists say that law is written against them,
that tells me why not revise the law where neither side is complaining, so it is neutral?

2.

secular beliefs (outside of religion/in the real/secular world) are NEVER truly equally accommodated and protected when making laws, unless there is no conflict or opposition to a majority/consensus. There is/or should be debate and persuasion before consensus/compromise/agreement is achieved on what is enacted into law. We have a representative form of government and and this is how it works with the people we elect to represent us.

RE:

1a) The view that we should become a representative democracy within a republican form of government won the argument and 'federalism' won the day for ratification of the US Constitution. Others believed that was not the way to go. It's how things work.

A 'CONSENSUS on abortion and related laws' will never be achieved because the 'prolife' movement is against consensus just as the Tea Party is against any consensus on anything involving Democrats and/or the President, or just as HAMAS is against a consensus on allowing Israel to exist.

2. Not true for all prolife
many prolife republicans understand prochoice as constitutional default position.
they respect equal views of the others due to differences in beliefs protected by law.
Guiliani made this argument about respecting prochioce views and others do too.
my friend Juda Myers who believes all abortion should be illegal
even accepted this when I explained using the constitution and religious beliefs.

so I am trying to help more people respect this same prochoice approach
to similar issues of choice (heath care, reparative therapy, etc where people
believe in more choices than the other sides wants to limit by govt laws)

As for representative system
YES we keep the same system but watch out for religious issues
that require consensus on how they are written because people
cannot change their beliefs they will fight politically to defend.
if we know it is going to cause a fight and neither side can change
their inherent beleifs, why be cruel and force it to majority rule: why not
write the laws more carefully to resolve the conflicts and avoid any bias
that would force one side to object to defeend their views. we know this
is happening why keep falling into the same traps?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

...

...

You keep bringing government into regulating/enforcing religious beliefs.

A fetus versus a person

---

I believe we as a species will evolve enough one day, when the need arises and we will dump this religious belief bullshit
D

I am saying it's the other way around.
I'm not bringing govt into these beliefs,
but the beliefs were brought into govt by making laws
about abortion, health care, etc.

When you make laws that violate people's beliefs,
even ones you and I don't hold and don't agree with but others do,
that is crossing the line between religion and public policy,
church and state.

I listen to the people whose beliefs were infringed upon,
to find out what does it take to correct the breach, the overreach, the conflict.

Dante, especially if I do not have those people's beliefs,
I need to be more careful to include their input so the
laws I support DO NOT have some bias I wasn't aware of.

I didn't cause this, Dante.

When Obama and Democrats pushed the ACA to pass,
knowing it had objections to it, they ended up imposing
federal laws that infringed on people's beliefs they did NOT treat as equal.

Like you, they expected to let "Courts" decide on it.

That's not equal.
Because the beliefs in "right to health care through govt"
are now treated as the default if you consider the bill to be a valid law.

So passing this as law essentially endorsed a "national belief or religion"
that supporter like you believe in imposing against the beliefs of others.

I understand you do not believe those beliefs are valid or infringed upon,
but the "democratic process worked"

The Constitutionalists like me believe
a. the process was flawed and subverted by ethics violations and conflicts
of interests by making deals for financial and political gain, and not
based SOLELY on the content of the law as representing/serving the people
b. the content and process of the law skipped or violated Constitutional steps
necessary for the lawful process to work and represent the people
c. beliefs were violated by this law and the passing of it,
so it was not in keeping with Constitutional duty to "represent the public"
but discriminates by "representing party interests and political beliefs of one group
over another" so again it violates Constitutional duty and the Code of Ethics on top.

Dante just because I bring up these issues
doesn't mean they weren't already being violated.

I just brought them to your attention.
The lines were crossed between beliefs and public policy.

With beliefs about govt and role of govt in health care,
there is no way to make such a law without involving
"political beliefs" -- so of course it crosses the line
between religious beliefs and govt/law.

Therefore, I hold "consensus" as the standard
if such laws are made that cross that line.

Either agree on the laws if these are made through govt,
or separate and have separate political organizations and
networks to run programs with separate funding and policies
so people's beliefs are equally protected and can be exercised in full
without infringing on the beliefs of others with equal freedom to do the same.

Dante if you don't believe in my standard of govt
and I don't believe in yours, that's even more reason
we should keep govt to areas we both agree on,
and move the rest we don't to other venues and not public law if we believe differently.

We would solve the problem and have no more issues
with imposing govt into religion or religion into govt
if we could separate out and only reserve govt for areas of consensus.

No more of these conflicts.

We could resolve everything in private, with freedom to keep to our own beliefs, and just
make laws/govt where it reflects agreement among the public and not impose either way.

You are arguing about religious beliefs on health care choices. That is bringing religion into it.

You have a few things backwards: religious beliefs cannot conflict with and trump law. ex: My religion demands I slaughter anyone who insults my god.

Laws cannot violate somebody's practice of religious faith, as long as that belief is legal.

You are still confused: "When Obama and Democrats pushed the ACA to pass,
knowing it had objections to it, they ended up imposing
federal laws that infringed on people's beliefs they did NOT treat as equal."

No one is argued their beliefs were not being treated equally. Read the syllabus: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Again: no one has a type of right to religious beliefs that you think they do. The http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf decision is a narrow one that some religious bigots hope will open the door to furthering introducing government endorsement of their religious beliefs at the expense of others.

A 'right to health care through govt'? Who is government in our society?

A right to health care through govt is NOT comparable in any way shape or form to a religion.

wtf is a 'Constitutionalist' like you?

"Dante if you don't believe in my standard of govt
and I don't believe in yours..." I believe in the US Constitution which you claim to have a strangle hold on, since by calling yourself a 'Constitutionalist' you implicitly suggest others are NOT.

We have a representative republic. If dislike our form of government, try and change it.

good luck with that
D
:

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] thanks again for working with me to edit down
where the points of conflict occur.

1.

1) Ahem, the religious beliefs of people do not and should not have to "be equally accommodated and protected when making laws." Why? Because that would be government dictating and imposing religious beliefs upon people through law.

conflicts are why laws are written and enacted.

1. Yes, agreed, that the point is for govt NOT to dictate and impose religious beliefs upon people through law. What I mean by accommodating does NOT mean imposing someone else's beliefs onto other people, but the Opposite of this: to make sure govt policy does not inadvertently IMPOSE such a bias, but Prevents from discriminating against any group with its language. what I mean by accommodating those objections or issues is to resolve any conflict with the language that would otherwise impose either way.

Example a. the first amendment states free exercise of religion.
If everyone agrees this includes protecting atheists from imposition of christianity,
we can leave it worded as is. But if one group pushes for a state law to specify not imposing christianity on atheists, and another group pushes for a state law to specify not imposing atheist biases on christians, then people will fight over how that law is worded.
so the conflict is resolved by either using neutral language such as religion or beliefs,
or agreeing that the first amendment already covers this and doesn't require new laws.
that is an example of what I mean by accommodating; I mean not to use language that favors christians over atheists or favors atheists over christians
because AS YOU SAY this WOULD be govt dictating particular reiigions or beliefs.
I mean the same thing you said to try to Avoid this.

so I listen to when either christians or atheists say that law is written against them,
that tells me why not revise the law where neither side is complaining, so it is neutral?

2.

secular beliefs (outside of religion/in the real/secular world) are NEVER truly equally accommodated and protected when making laws, unless there is no conflict or opposition to a majority/consensus. There is/or should be debate and persuasion before consensus/compromise/agreement is achieved on what is enacted into law. We have a representative form of government and and this is how it works with the people we elect to represent us.

RE:

1a) The view that we should become a representative democracy within a republican form of government won the argument and 'federalism' won the day for ratification of the US Constitution. Others believed that was not the way to go. It's how things work.

A 'CONSENSUS on abortion and related laws' will never be achieved because the 'prolife' movement is against consensus just as the Tea Party is against any consensus on anything involving Democrats and/or the President, or just as HAMAS is against a consensus on allowing Israel to exist.

2. Not true for all prolife
many prolife republicans understand prochoice as constitutional default position.
they respect equal views of the others due to differences in beliefs protected by law.
Guiliani made this argument about respecting prochioce views and others do too.
my friend Juda Myers who believes all abortion should be illegal
even accepted this when I explained using the constitution and religious beliefs.

so I am trying to help more people respect this same prochoice approach
to similar issues of choice (heath care, reparative therapy, etc where people
believe in more choices than the other sides wants to limit by govt laws)

As for representative system
YES we keep the same system but watch out for religious issues
that require consensus on how they are written because people
cannot change their beliefs they will fight politically to defend.
if we know it is going to cause a fight and neither side can change
their inherent beliefs, why be cruel and force it to majority rule: why not
write the laws more carefully to resolve the conflicts and avoid any bias
that would force one side to object to defend their views legally. We know this
is happening why keep falling into the same traps?

it's always the same issues, so we can isolate and focus on those.
the other laws don't have this same problem, just religious and political beliefs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hi [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] thanks again for working with me to edit down
where the points of conflict occur.

1.

1) Ahem, the religious beliefs of people do not and should not have to "be equally accommodated and protected when making laws." Why? Because that would be government dictating and imposing religious beliefs upon people through law.

conflicts are why laws are written and enacted.

1. Yes, agreed, that the point is for govt NOT to dictate and impose religious beliefs upon people through law. What I mean by accommodating does NOT mean imposing someone else's beliefs onto other people, but the Opposite of this: to make sure govt policy does not inadvertently IMPOSE such a bias, but Prevents from discriminating against any group with its language. what I mean by accommodating those objections or issues is to resolve any conflict with the language that would otherwise impose either way.

Example a. the first amendment states free exercise of religion.
If everyone agrees this includes protecting atheists from imposition of christianity,
we can leave it worded as is. But if one group pushes for a state law to specify not imposing christianity on atheists, and another group pushes for a state law to specify not imposing atheist biases on christians, then people will fight over how that law is worded.
so the conflict is resolved by either using neutral language such as religion or beliefs,
or agreeing that the first amendment already covers this and doesn't require new laws.
that is an example of what I mean by accommodating; I mean not to use language that favors christians over atheists or favors atheists over christians
because AS YOU SAY this WOULD be govt dictating particular reiigions or beliefs.
I mean the same thing you said to try to Avoid this.

so I listen to when either christians or atheists say that law is written against them,
that tells me why not revise the law where neither side is complaining, so it is neutral?

2.

secular beliefs (outside of religion/in the real/secular world) are NEVER truly equally accommodated and protected when making laws, unless there is no conflict or opposition to a majority/consensus. There is/or should be debate and persuasion before consensus/compromise/agreement is achieved on what is enacted into law. We have a representative form of government and and this is how it works with the people we elect to represent us.

RE:

1a) The view that we should become a representative democracy within a republican form of government won the argument and 'federalism' won the day for ratification of the US Constitution. Others believed that was not the way to go. It's how things work.

A 'CONSENSUS on abortion and related laws' will never be achieved because the 'prolife' movement is against consensus just as the Tea Party is against any consensus on anything involving Democrats and/or the President, or just as HAMAS is against a consensus on allowing Israel to exist.

2. Not true for all prolife
many prolife republicans understand prochoice as constitutional default position.
they respect equal views of the others due to differences in beliefs protected by law.
Guiliani made this argument about respecting prochioce views and others do too.
my friend Juda Myers who believes all abortion should be illegal
even accepted this when I explained using the constitution and religious beliefs.

so I am trying to help more people respect this same prochoice approach
to similar issues of choice (heath care, reparative therapy, etc where people
believe in more choices than the other sides wants to limit by govt laws)

As for representative system
YES we keep the same system but watch out for religious issues
that require consensus on how they are written because people
cannot change their beliefs they will fight politically to defend.
if we know it is going to cause a fight and neither side can change
their inherent beleifs, why be cruel and force it to majority rule: why not
write the laws more carefully to resolve the conflicts and avoid any bias
that would force one side to object to defeend their views. we know this
is happening why keep falling into the same traps?

1. It is impossible "to make sure govt policy does not inadvertently IMPOSE such a bias" that is why our government has a judicial branch. We have a constitution and laws designed to prevent newer laws "from discriminating against any group with its language". This does not prevent those types of laws from being enacted. That would be an impossibility: Human Nature being what it is.

reply:
Example a.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Your example here considers the legislative process in states.

When "christians...say that law is written against them" I know they are nuts. There is no anti-Christian legislature in the USA, state or federal. No legislature is proposing laws, debating laws, writing laws, or enacting laws for the hidden or expressed purpose of getting rid of Christianity. To suggest otherwise is to treat a nutty, biased opinion as equal to truth/fact.


When "atheists say that law is written against them" I can point to explicit examples.

2. You are now talking nonsense. People who find abortion repugnant do not respect beliefs that abortion is okay. They respect the law that says abortion is okay.

The PPACA/Obamacare is designed to provide more choice, not less. This court decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf restricts choice. It makes exceptions to choice based upon protecting religious beliefs. It's like restricting free speech based upon public safety.

People who are misguided, or bigots, or extremists will always fight laws enacted for the public good, based on ideological, religious, or other reasoning.

We do not have direct democracy, we have a representative form of democracy that protects the minority from majority rule: and thank gawd for dat!



who loves ya baby?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]

Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Due Process Clause

I looked up the relationship between Roe V Wade and "due process"

The technical argument/term is "substantive due process"
which combines what YOU were saying about "right to privacy" (not expressly
in the Constitution, but neither is "right to health care," or "Consent of the Governed")
with what I was saying about "due process" (ie depriving people of liberty before proving any crime had been committed)

Now, my question is can this argument of "substantive due process" (used to defend free choice of "reproductive health")
be applied to argue, similarly, that the federal govt has no right to impose a penalty/fine
by taxation based on someone's BELIEF, CHOICE or DECISION about "health care"?

If this "substantive due process" argument can be used to rule that the
decision for women to have abortions is PRIVATE and not for govt regulation,
what about the decision to "pay for one's own health care other ways besides insurance"?

(NOTE: I can understand why the prolife opponents of ACA cannot make this argument if they do not recognize Roe V Wade. is THAT why this legal argument is not pursued???)

Dante if you were on the Supreme Court, and this case came to you, using Roe V Wade to strike down the federal mandates based on "substantive due process"
what would you argue to distinguish the two cases? Thanks!

The health care mandate is a tax break that you receive by having health insurance. Having health insurance lowers your tax liability.

It's like having a mortgage with interest. The government doesn't force you to borrow money to buy a house,

but they will give you a lower tax liability if you do.

 

[Peach]

[MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]

Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Due Process Clause

I looked up the relationship between Roe V Wade and "due process"

The technical argument/term is "substantive due process"
which combines what YOU were saying about "right to privacy" (not expressly
in the Constitution, but neither is "right to health care," or "Consent of the Governed")
with what I was saying about "due process" (ie depriving people of liberty before proving any crime had been committed)

Now, my question is can this argument of "substantive due process" (used to defend free choice of "reproductive health")
be applied to argue, similarly, that the federal govt has no right to impose a penalty/fine
by taxation based on someone's BELIEF, CHOICE or DECISION about "health care"?

If this "substantive due process" argument can be used to rule that the
decision for women to have abortions is PRIVATE and not for govt regulation,
what about the decision to "pay for one's own health care other ways besides insurance"?

(NOTE: I can understand why the prolife opponents of ACA cannot make this argument if they do not recognize Roe V Wade. is THAT why this legal argument is not pursued???)

Dante if you were on the Supreme Court, and this case came to you, using Roe V Wade to strike down the federal mandates based on "substantive due process"
what would you argue to distinguish the two cases? Thanks!

The health care mandate is a tax break that you receive by having health insurance. Having health insurance lowers your tax liability.

It's like having a mortgage with interest. The government doesn't force you to borrow money to buy a house,

but they will give you a lower tax liability if you do.

Substantive Due Process is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Scalia refers to the concept as an "oxymoron". Used to strike down minimum wage laws, (Lochner) and in Griswold, the concept is flexible, to phrase it mildly. Penumbral rights is a more cohesive description. The Court used the term penumbral in Griswold, if I remember correctly.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]

1.

A 'Code of Ethics for Government Service' is for employees of government agencies, not legislators whose job descriptions include resolution of conflicts. Most any proposal put forth in a legislature would pit one group's interests against those of others. This is why we have legislatures and laws: competing interests.

1a. There is still a difference in "competing interests" as in balancing two that can be addressed without overriding each other, such as one group wanting to focus on inmate rights and one group wanting to focus on crime victim rights, so the policy has to address both;
1b. VERSUS what I am saying is DIFFERENT with religiously held beliefs- '
where one group's unchangeable beliefs against the death penalty they do not believe in funding and another group's beliefs in keeping the death penalty as a choice in order to negotiate plea agreements ARE in inherent conflict because of religious beliefs. That is different from other forms of competing interests.

I am trying to isolate those areas in order to resolve conflicts and prevent biases from getting into laws that inherently discriminate and cause political disruption due to unequal defense and due process; it pits one side on the defense, where they no longer have equal rights to their beliefs until the bias in the law is corrected, so that is not equal protection.

YES this system can lead to higher sensitivity to seek consensus on other areas of law; but my point is to recognize the absolute necessity to protect it where religiously held beliefs ae at stake.

the way to tell the difference, is if people are willing or not willing to subject the vote to majority rule, and if people are willing to fund their own beliefs separately, and not impose on others:
in the case of gay marriage even when states ruled in the majority to ban it, the advocates did not accept that as constitutional on religious grounds, so it is not just another issue that can be settled by a vote. that is how you can tell the difference. If people agree to compromise on building a 50 ft wall or a 60 ft wall, that is NOT a religious issue.
So there is a major inherent difference when people cannot agree on issues like abortion, marriage laws, or the death penalty because there is an inherent belief that is in conflict.

Rape is illegal, war is not. Neither can be wholly prevented. Classify all war as illegal and it would be like any other crime, punishable yet not preventable.

Again you already impose your belief and do not recognize you do so.
there are spiritual means of treating most causes of abuse, crime, rape and war.
So it is possible to identify and resolve these issues to prevent rape and war.

If people like you keep making policies based on ASSUMING there is no possible cure, such as for criminal sickness, then the laws will be biased against treatments that can prevent criminal acts from resulting from untreated sickness. So this is an important bias. It does affect legislation.

For example, if I have knowledge of how criminal sickness can be cured and people will come forward to get help, even voluntarily detained, then I would promote legislation to direct resources into reseach and treatment programs to offer to such sick people instead of letting them run around freely as dangerous sex offenders or predatory criminals.
If someone like you has no knowledge or perception of any such treatment, you would favor legislation that just locks up or punishes people -- this does not give incentive for people to report sickness in advance and get help. But the approach of promoting medical treatment might encourage people to get help or report family or friends who need help to prevent criminal dangers.

3.

Again: Beliefs are not equal.

why not hold each person/group equally respnosible for their own beliefs.
if we can identify and separate these, then people can be allowed to
separate and fund their beleifs where these clash with others so they don't impose.

4.

"The Code of Ethics was passed unanimously, so other laws can be also!"

Codes of ethics govern how one should behave, and so how laws are proposed, debated, written, and enacted can be and is/are governed by codes of ethics. This does not govern and guarantee equality or result and more...

4a. I gave this as an EXAMPLE of a well written law, not complicated, just 10 articles that average citizens can read and interpret and apply in general to other situations,
which WAS PASSED by Congress unanimously. So it is possible to write laws that are neutral enough they do not get political divided by liberal Democrats vs. conservative Republicans.

4b. For your comments that this "code of ethics" only applies to federal employees and not to legislators, etc.
4b. Why not expand it then, to apply to ALL govt employees on all levels?
If the 14 Amendment was added and later the Civil Rights act, to expand
constitutional protections of individuals first to the States and then to all public institutions,
then why can't we do the same with these govt ethics?

In the meantime it is NOT "against the law" to ask people to follow them.
I guess from your viewpoint it isn't required until it passed by law to apply specifically?

If so, isn't that what Constitutionalists are asking about the federal authority to expand IRS and health care to create ACA exchanges under mandates and tax penalties?
They also asked that since the Constitution didn't expressly state this, the laws require a Constitutional Amendment granting that authority.
Instead the law passed through Congress as a health care act revision then passed through the Court a tax,
while the natural laws/limited govt advocates still argue it requires a Constitutional Amendment.

So if we can pass a Constitutional Amendment to expand laws to apply in broader ways,
why not do so with the Code of Ethics?

So I agree, that if this requires additional legislation, then fine.
I just find it biased that when other people ask for that, this is politically overridden depending on someone's bias for or against that request.

When it fits your belief you insist that the laws doesn't apply until another law is passed to authorize that application.
when another group argues, but that goes against your preference, you cite things that would justify it being applicable.

So I see both groups do this; shouldn't we be safe and take the route that makes sure all procedures are followed and no step skipped that someone objects to skipping?

 

[emilynghiem]

The health care mandate is a tax break that you receive by having health insurance. Having health insurance lowers your tax liability.

It's like having a mortgage with interest. The government doesn't force you to borrow money to buy a house,

but they will give you a lower tax liability if you do.

Hi [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]

You don't see people yelling about laws
forcing people to buy house insurance, etc.
because choices of houses are not being regulated like choices of health care.

With buying a house I am not being mandated to buy insurance in advance of when I want to buy it, or under terms I don't agree to pay for.

With this health care mandate, even if I believe in investing money directly into charity teaching hospitals that provide education and services on a low cost sustainable basis,
that choice is not exempted but I am still required to pay an addition 1% fine of my income into funding the other system I DO NOT BELIEVE IN.

I DO NOT BELIEVE in govt forcing people to fund govt health care, when we can have the free and equal option to develop educational and charitable systems directly that respect free choice of participation, funding and programs offered.

So if I believe in spiritual healing to cut costs of health care to help more people
I can fund that myself without getting fined by govt or regulated over these choices.
but under govt mandated health care, a choice like spiritual healing could not be mandated.
This tells me that health care should remain as a free choice, and so should the funding of it.
If people CHOOSE to go through govt that should be an equal choice but not the only one
or it precludes other spiritual choices that aren't recognized under the narrow exemptions that regulate by very specific religion.

this is not the same thing as houses.

I think the equivalent would be like forcing all people to pay for house insurance in advance, under specific terms that have to cover certain things regardless of if they apply to you or not, and if you don't buy insurance you have to pay a fine that only funds govt housing under a tax supported system.

If you believe as I do that paying for insurance should remain a free choice,
that liberty is taken away even if you did not commit any crimes.

It is just for the convenience of govt under the belief that "all housing should be made universal through govt" that would impose this and take away people's individual freedoms.

so that is NOT happening with choice of housing as it is for health care.

You would have to create a whole other scenario to compare housing with health care under these mandates.

Is this close enough to show the difference?

 

[emilynghiem]

Substantive Due Process is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Scalia refers to the concept as an "oxymoron". Used to strike down minimum wage laws, (Lochner) and in Griswold, the concept is flexible, to phrase it mildly. Penumbral rights is a more cohesive description. The Court used the term penumbral in Griswold, if I remember correctly.

Hi [MENTION=17668]Peach[/MENTION]
thanks for that clarification and term which I will look up as well!
would you say people are showing political bias
in which cases/sides they start enforcing or applying this
(whether it is called due process, substantive due process, or Penumbral rights)

1. gun rights people argue they want to keep their rights as law abiding citizens
and not lose their liberty just because of "other people's" criminal abuses
they are not directly responsible for. others say that as long as people are too lax with laws, indirectly we share responsible for those criminal abuses, so collectively we must act to do something. but the laws they suggest set off the gun rights people who don't want their rights reduced "without due process" but want to hold wrongdoers respnosible.

would it help to agree on interpretation
that the second amendment "people" means "law abiding citizens"
and it does not apply to "people with criminal intent"
so the problem remains how do we determine and regulate
just the ones wth criminal intent so the laws passed do not infringe
on citizens who are law abiding?

that's one example

2. for this health care business
isn't the point to make sure people do not impose costs in a way the taxpayers
don't agree to pay for

a. if one group prefers to pay by free market, and values freedom of choice over taking away liberties by making everyone buy insurance
b. but another group prefers to give up some freedom to cut costs they prefer to cover through govt at the expense of freedom

why can't we write the law where it says this

so neither group feels their freedom to exercise their beliefs
is infringed upon by the other group with different beliefs

In general Peach,
if more people can see it is relative
* that with abortion one group feels it is more important to defend life over choice
* with health care one group feels it is more important to defend health care through govt over free choice
with gun rights, reparative choice of therapy, etc.
one group wants an outright ban, and the other defends free choice for
those who are not involved in crimes fraud or abuse,

I think we would approach these conflicts with greater understanding
and respect for the opposing beliefs. so I think it would change our
abiity to resolve conflicts if we can promote equal respect and inclusion DESPITE the differences that we pretty much know will not change.

I would like to see the difference it would make in policies
if we recognized these biases are going on, and instead of blaming
each other's groups for them, we work with whatever biases people
have because of their inherent beliefs that are causing them to not see each other's.

Thank you Peach
if your terminology helps to solve some of this
I will go back and give you rep on that post.

we need to have terms to describe what is
going on if we are going to facilitate the democratic process
past these bumps and clashes that are keeping groups in deadlocks Thanks!

ustice Cardozo's use of the penumbra metaphor in opinions written between 1934 and 1941 was similar to Holmes's application, but Justice Douglas took a different approach. Rather than using it to highlight the difficulty of drawing lines or determining the meaning of words or concepts, he used the term when he wanted to refer to a peripheral area or an indistinct boundary of something specific.

Douglas's most famous use of penumbra is in the Griswold decision. In the Griswold case, appellants Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a medical professor at Yale Medical School and director of the league's office in New Haven, were convicted for prescribing contraceptive devices and giving contraceptive advice to married persons in violation of a Connecticut statute. They challenged the constitutionality of the statute, which made it unlawful to use any drug or medicinal article for the purpose of preventing conception, on behalf of the married persons with whom they had a professional relationship. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional because it was a violation of a person's right to privacy. In his opinion, Douglas stated that the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and sub-stance," and that the right to privacy exists within this area.

Since Griswold, the penumbra doctrine has primarily been used to represent implied powers that emanate from a specific rule, thus extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra.

I found this ^ online.
I still find it disturbing that courts have power to rule when this term or rules on privacy do or do not apply
I think we need better terminology and respect for different thresholds for people's beliefs and applications
of what they believe is protected free choice and private decisions
otherwise the arbitrary nature by which courts can rule one way in one case, and another elsewhere
does not seem to protect petitioners equally
i would rather support a process that resolves these conflicts as they arise
to prevent the risk of imposing by arbitrary belief of the presiding judge(s) and which viewpoint they happen to favor

this still is not equally protective enough to me
to meet standards of "Equal Justice Under Law" or "Equal Protections of the Laws"

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]

Again both points still show a bias that other people do not necessarily
believe in. Since there are ways to solve the conflict WITHOUT imposing
on either side, I prefer that way as more constitutionally inclusive.

By your religious freedom, no, I cannot MAKE you or anyone enforce a more inclusive standard of law through govt, which would be preferred by prolife instead of the current laws when more could be done to address sexual abuse and relationship abuse to satisfy their grievances.

Such laws on such a sensitive personal issue of choice would require consensus;
I am just setting up the first step of that process which is to recognize that many people do believe their views are discriminated against and the current laws are biased toward enabling abortion without enough laws to address the abuses that cause abortion.

This is like the equivalent of addressing drug reform policies, by showing people there are better solutions than just criminal penalties that make the problem worse. If they can see better written laws can address the same issues WITHOUT causing problems, they might be more open to reform. The first step is to show that better policies can be enacted.

With abortion I would suggest developing laws on a heath and safety level where relationship abuse and sexual abuse can be addressed; so for the prolife people who want to prevent abortion this would focus on an earlier point in the decision to have sex and risk pregnancy, instead of focusing on abortion laws after the pregnancy which affects women more than men.

1.

Thanks [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

"If the govt cannot tell a woman what to do with her pregnancy
including ABORT A FETUS WHICH IS "POSSIBLY" FEELING THINGS AS A PERSON" -- A person needs a developed brain. It is a fetus inside the woman's body. End of story.

1. agreed but to balance the focus of the laws, what I suggest as above is to accommodate the beliefs of prolife interests by writing laws that DO NOT TARGET the women or the fetus after pregnancy, but focus on relationship and sexual abuse BEFORE pregnancy.

So this would solve part of the problem.
this would reduce the divisive public perception taht the groups cannot agree, when they could if the laws focused on prevention at the point where both partners are equally responsible OR if there is rape or incest by males, then the males are held responsible instead of punishing the females.

2.

RE: "why can federal mandates tell people "how to pay for health care"
which is NOT a crime and commits NO HARM to others if people
choose to (a) pay for their own health care freely with or without insurance
and (b) choose to provide free health care to others through spiritual healing, for example." - It is within the powers granted the Congress' to do so. That is why. (read what Chief Justice Roberts wrote)

We are not colonies. We have elected representation, which passes laws in our name. We have the choice to change government and that is how we can change laws we do not like.

Not liking a law and refusing to recognize it cannot hide behind a right to privacy. That was not an argument I saw made to the court.

2a. What Roberts wrote still precludes the political belief that a Constitutional Amendment is required before passing such a bill as law

2b. this is not the same as "just not liking a law"
that is like calling Roe V Wade "just not liking a law"
when the content of it was trying to address govt intrusion where
some level of due process/personal freedom was compromised

Dante I hope you are intellectually open enough to see the bias going on here.

No, the cases are not perfectly the same.
But can you at least see the personal bias depending on people's beliefs?

1. if people are opposed to abortion they see Roe V Wade as
"Just not liking a law" and do not recognize any "natural freedoms/choices"
being denied because to them "that is NOT a choice in the first place"
and no amount of laws/judicial rulings can make it lawful as a choice

2. if you support the court and congress on ACA
then the arguments to strike it down are
"Just not liking a law" you do not recognize the freedom to buy health
care outside this ACA as a "natural freedom or choice being denied"
because to you it is "NOT a choice" after the Court/Congress passes/rules it as law.
but to people who BELIEVE in natural rights and freedoms given by God not govt,
"no amount" of judicial rulings or laws can take away that choice

can you see the process is mutual
and is biased based on what people support or don't support through govt?

Thanks Dante!