Question for Members and Mods: How to organize a 10 million dollar lawsuit per petitioner?

[emilynghiem]

So no lawyer has contacted you. That's because your case is nonsense. I'm sorry to be the one to break the bad news. That no one has called you back should have been at least a clue.

You are presenting some sort of convoluted class action, except the only ones interested is you and one friend. What you want to do is sue the government and force obamacare to be single payer because you like that better.

No. You have not articulated any basis for a lawsuit.

Just to educate you a little bit. Private citizens cannot sue in a criminal action. Criminal is brought by the state. Civil is brought by individuals that have been harmed. You have never explained your harm.

And. I have never been a doctor nor ever said I was.

BTW Tipsycatlover
How many lawyers took up the cause of slavery being a violation of equal human rights? How many fought in court and won?

Oh, that's right. It took a Civil War to fight that battle.
And that's what's happening here as well, a 'civil war' has been going on
in the media and in political circles. The same way abolition was fought in the political arena before slavery became an issue in the Civil War.

BTW Last I checked, there may have been a case of reparations RECENTLY that was actually won in court -- how many years after the Civil War and Emancipation Proclamation?

So Tipsycatlover by your way of judging things,
if there has never been a national agreement on how to pay reparations for slavery,
does that mean "arguments against slavery as violations" have NO MERIT?

What about rape victims who have never been able to prove or win their case,
much less receive restitution for the damages?

If RAPE VICTIMS can't find a lawyer
that means IT'S OKAY TO HAVE RAPED THEM
BECAUSE THEIR ARGUMENTS MUST HAVE NO MERIT?

IS THIS YOUR STANDARD OF JUSTICE NOW:
WHETHER PEOPLE CAN FIND A LAWYER?

Tipsycatlover do you want to go into the Bullring
and debate whether someone's ability to find a lawyer
should be used as a determining factor in whether their
arguments have merit! REALLY???

OMG if this is what our country has come to,
I have nothing to lose by going on hunger strike.
We have already lost it all! Good Lord have mercy....

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Tipsycatlover JakeStarkey and other skeptics

I think I found a way to approach this without necessarily a formal lawsuit.
I am appealing to Asian business and legal professionals in the Vietnamese community
to consider this issue, of conflicting political beliefs that cannot be separated from govt as readily as religious beliefs, and am asking support to write a resolution, petition or plea to the President and party leaders to refrain from any more infringements on the political beliefs of fellow Americans who all deserve equal protection instead of being threatened with bullying, exclusion, discrimination and penalties due to these differences.

I think this issue is too big to be addressed in courts, and needs to be addressed directly among people so we have freedom to speak for ourselves outside of political or govt positions that already bias and limit our response.

So Tipsycatlover it is not because this argument is moot that no legal help can be found.
It's that the legal system itself is already too biased and limited to take this on.
It does not FIT there, but maybe belongs on the level of Constitutional conventions that are contested
also as to how to conduct these to avoid threats of hijacking and pushing political agenda and beliefs.

I met an Asian business woman and political analyst, and shared my concerns that our country and govt has never addressed or defined how to handle Political Beliefs under the Constitution. Unlike religious beliefs that can be argued to "separate from govt" this cannot be done so readily with Political beliefs that by their nature, mix people's inherent personal beliefs with what they require or believe govt should or should not do. As a writer and business developer with Vietnamese Radio, she understood and was interested in taking on this challenge.

I said I couldn't find lawyers to sue, or govt officials/politicians willing to be honest and address this as the root issue, because they were too biased and thus embroiled in too much conflict and couldn't handle the responsibility of being so neutral as to mediate and actually agree how to write laws so well that they neither establish one belief or deny another, so both sides of each issue keep fighting to shut the other out of the process to protect their own beliefs. She understood; since she is a political analyst and writer, I think it might have appealed to her to look into this challenge of communicating and writing up better agreements.

I told her that this could be the Asian community's chance to contribute something to the US political history, by resolving this issue once and for all: how to handle political beliefs, such as agreeing to either write and pass laws, reforms and rulings by consensus where all sides are satisfied that there are no unfair biases excluding them or promoting a conflicting ideology, or writing up ways to separate policies and funding, such as by party, state or local business/nonprofit/school/civic organization and keep these conflicts of belief "out of govt" in ways that still allow people equal freedom to exercise them without imposing on others who don't share that belief. I told her at this moment, the beliefs about health care, marriage and orientation, and other reforms are dividing the country by belief.

But it is not the govt's role to force anyone to change their beliefs, and that is what both parties keep pushing on each other. We need to address and solve this problem openly, so I want to appeal to the Asian legal and professional community to take this on, and see if we can help write up an appeal and solution to present to party and govt leaders that will compel the right steps of reform and refining how political beliefs are treated with respect to the First, Fourteenth Tenth Amendments and Civil Rights laws against discrimination by creed.

From her response, as a top respected business woman, writer and media professional in the Vietnamese community, I felt she understood how important this was, to US history of where we go from here, but was calm and thoughtful enough to work out solutions without all the emotional and political hype and upset that has disrupted relations and ability to discuss and really address and resolve these problems fully and consistently.

Most people who are that neutral and calm, don't care at all and that's why they don't react.
it's rare to find someone who grasps the historical importance, but doesn't go overboard to extremes with it either. Most of the groups and people I've found who understand the implication, go onto fundamentalist
rants or crusades against the offending group(s). it's hard to find people who care enough to get involved, but don't go overboard either and lose their centrality and equal respect for all sides, without bias for or against.

I felt such a connection, I really felt it could be the calling of the Vietnamese community to bring out this point, where nobody would argue with them. When black or white leaders, liberals or conservatives, Christian pastors or Constitutionalists speak out, people strike them down. But what if the Asian community leaders wrote out a resolution asking for wisdom and compassion in stopping this trend of bullying Christians and prolife, either progay or antigay, or progun and anti-gun for their beliefs about the marriage laws, Second Amendment, policies on right to life and right to health care, and recognized these as equal beliefs without fear that any of them is going to be either deprived, denied or forced on anyone through govt, but that we could work together to write better laws and legislation that doesn't require anyone to compromise their beliefs. I can't explain it well here, without introducing a bias, but she got the idea. And I think she can run with it, and help organize business, legal and professional leaders to address this in a way that will not make it go off onto onesided agenda the way people fear a Constitutional convention would get hijacked politically. I am hoping that by bringing together the right people, it will stay centered; being focused on agreeing on solely what is the right answers by God that will unite the nation, and not on any manmade political agenda.

So finally I think I found the angle that is going to be the pivotal break in this trend, like the decision by Rosa Parks not to sit in the back of the bus. I think we can start this in Houston, and make it happen nationally.

I will keep working to build a team and address this without swaying for or against any one agenda, but staying so central that all people of all groups, beliefs and political views feel included, welcome and motivated to participate in contributing to writing better laws, reforms and rulings that meet Constitutional standards of equal inclusion, representation, and protection for all people without fear of discrimination by creed.

I would like to address fellow Democrats directly, and ask Republicans to address leaders and members of their own party as well, so it is clear this isn't about dominance or attacking anyone by party, but reforming things from within so all groups achieve their goals and principles without infringing on the equal Constitutional rights of others -- if we want to invoke those same protections and respect for our beliefs.

Thank you very much!
Yours truly, Emily

P.S. I also have similar ideas of asking the Black leadership to address the issues of Islam and Constitutional principles, to unite liberals and conservatives on sustainable business and educational plans to set up microlending to replace welfare and medical education and public health internships to replace the abusive policies in mental institutions, prisons and death row.

And asking support of friends in the Latino communities to take on the drug and human trafficking issues, assessing restitution owed for organized crimes and investing restitution into developing business, schools and military facilities along the border to provide sustainable support to oppressed populations to end the cycles of poverty, crime and abuses.

 

[Judicial review]

Emily I'll write it up. All I need is all of your signatures

 

[JakeStarkey]

I can't support your program, Emily, because your statement, ". . . our country and govt has never addressed or defined how to handle Political Beliefs under the Constitution" is wrong..

 

[Katzndogz]

Political beliefs are not protected under the Constitution. Health care is not a right.

If you have ten million dollars pony it up.

Your head is filled with garbage.

 

[emilynghiem]

Political beliefs are not protected under the Constitution. Health care is not a right.

If you have ten million dollars pony it up.

Your head is filled with garbage.

^ see JakeStarkey
Even Tipsycatlover agrees that political beliefs are not protected under the Constitution.
Constitutionialism as a political religion and belief in limited govt
has NOT been resolved in relation with liberal beliefs.

JakeStarkey: where has anyone worked this out with
President Obama and Judge Roberts about respecting political beliefs
and MEDIATING to resolve conflicts so that laws and govt remain neutral nonbiased and all inclusive
equally protective of all citizens?

Last I checked BOTH parties were actively investing money and votes
into VOTING EACH OTHER out of office to push their own representation.

Where have we discussed how to resolve conflicts so nobody is pushed out or excluded?
Did I not word this CLEARLY enough?

I am not just talking about ARGUING and DENOUNCING other people's political beliefs.

I've seen posters on here, some Libertarians, and some Opinion editorials
TALK about separating marriage from govt to solve the problem.

BUT NOT A CONCERTED UNIFIED AGREEMENT AMONG NATIONAL LEADERS
about how to separate political beliefs from govt and/or mediating conflicts for consensus
on how to word policies, laws and reforms.

Are we talking about the same thing JakeStarkey?

If this had been RESOLVED, people and parties wouldn't still be
FIGHTING over it. DUH!

PROOF that it hasn't been resolved.
At least Tipsycatlover acknowledges political beliefs aren't
mentioned in the Constitution. At least we agree on that!

Thank you! for something!

 

[Silhouette]

Dear USMB Members and Mods:
Does anyone have any references on how to launch a 10 million dollar lawsuit
per petitioner who argues the ACA mandates violates Constitutional rights and principles,

Hmmm...file the suit and then offer to settle with the US Gov to drop the suit in exchange for Universal Healthcare. Sure. Sounds good.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Go for it, Emily.

 

[SwimExpert]

Dear USMB Members and Mods:
Does anyone have any references on how to launch a 10 million dollar lawsuit
per petitioner who argues the ACA mandates violates Constitutional rights and principles,
where each petitioner can set a demand, such as for 10 million in damages, be invested
by violating parties into setting up health care that DOES respect people's beliefs.

Such a lawsuit can include petitioners suing for Singlepayer since that is what they believe in,
and petitioners suing for Free Market alternatives on the same grounds. I am thinking both
Parties would need to be sued to pay for the damages (ie 24 billion estimated cost to taxpayers
for the federal shutdown due to the ACA bill being pushed through Congress without resolving
the issues of conflicting beliefs that have still not been addressed nor corrected) to be
invested into respective programs that protect the beliefs of those party members instead of violating them.

Please post if you have any ideas, references or means of support to call for petitioners
to organize and how to launch a drive to form a legal team to petition for immediate correction,
including assessing cases of DAMAGES and DISTRESS caused to citizens and investing
money into health care and medical programs that solve the problems without violating any
rights, laws or principles.

Thank you
EMILY NGHIEM
Petitioner #1

It's actually easy to do what you want....

1 - Meet with a lawyer and tell them everything you've said here.
2 - Wait 30 minutes for them to stop laughing at you.
3 - Leave, because they're still laughing and there's no indication they'll be finished any time soon.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear USMB Members and Mods:
Does anyone have any references on how to launch a 10 million dollar lawsuit
per petitioner who argues the ACA mandates violates Constitutional rights and principles,
where each petitioner can set a demand, such as for 10 million in damages, be invested
by violating parties into setting up health care that DOES respect people's beliefs.

Such a lawsuit can include petitioners suing for Singlepayer since that is what they believe in,
and petitioners suing for Free Market alternatives on the same grounds. I am thinking both
Parties would need to be sued to pay for the damages (ie 24 billion estimated cost to taxpayers
for the federal shutdown due to the ACA bill being pushed through Congress without resolving
the issues of conflicting beliefs that have still not been addressed nor corrected) to be
invested into respective programs that protect the beliefs of those party members instead of violating them.

Please post if you have any ideas, references or means of support to call for petitioners
to organize and how to launch a drive to form a legal team to petition for immediate correction,
including assessing cases of DAMAGES and DISTRESS caused to citizens and investing
money into health care and medical programs that solve the problems without violating any
rights, laws or principles.

Thank you
EMILY NGHIEM
Petitioner #1

It's actually easy to do what you want....

1 - Meet with a lawyer and tell them everything you've said here.
2 - Wait 30 minutes for them to stop laughing at you.
3 - Leave, because they're still laughing and there's no indication they'll be finished any time soon.

Dear SwimExpert

Would you like to take up the 10 milion dollar bet
that both sides of the health care debate and both
sides of the marriage debate have equal political beliefs that the govt cannot take sides
on without discriminating on the basis of creed?

I'm wiling to bet and raise 10 million dollars that it is
against the spirit of Constitutional principles laws and ethics
for President Obama, Congress and Judge Roberts to endorse
the ACA mandates as federal laws penalizing and discriminating
against citizens whose beliefs and creed were violated by the mandates.

10 million.

If I am the only one making the argument, that's fine.
You can laugh all you want, but are you willing to bet
me 10 million that I am wrong on this?

Are you that sure you are correct that the federal govt
has authority to impose federal mandates regulating
health care choices on buying insurance under penalty of law,
and Constitutional equality and ethics would not require
separating health care policies so that both the
believers in right to health care through govt and
believers in free market health care have EQUAL RIGHTS
to exercise their beliefs through the health care programs of their choice?

You are sure the govt has Constitutional authority to dictate
and penalize the choice of "how to pay for health care" for individual citizens?

And the ACA mandates are not just a poorly hastily passed bill
that needs to be reformed to correct the faults in it.

Are you willing to bet 10 million it "doesn't need to be reformed"
in order to respect and protect EQUAL Constitutional rights of
both the citizens who believe in Singlepayer health care and want to fund that
and the citizens who believe in Free Market health care and want to fund that.

Really? So you really believe that the people protesting the ACA mandates
are all doing that for nothing? You don't get that it is violating their core Constitutional beliefs?

That's still YOUR belief, if you think
the federal govt has the right to enforce and require ONE WAY for ALL CITIZENS
and penalize other choices that were not written in the bill as exemptions; and
the federal govt has the right to REGULATE ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION
depending on paid affiliation with approved programs including religious memberships
to determine which citizens get fined a tax penalty and which are exempted.

Does that give you or federal govt the right to force me to change my beliefs to yours?
and to fine me for wanting to invest in other ways of providing health care coverage for more people with or without using insurance which I believe should remain optional unless
people CONSENT to a plan that requires it. People have the right to CHOOSE to be under health care mandates, but govt does not have the right to IMPOSE these without consent since it involves personal choices and beliefs the govt was not given jurisdiction to regulate or penalize. That's my belief; shouldn't I have equal right to invest in programs that respect that belief from infringement?

Tipsycatlover are you willing to help raise 10 million dollars
if you are both wrong, and I can get other Democratic leaders
to admit that these political beliefs must remain the free choice
of individuals, similar to how prolife cannot be mandated through govt without public consent?

And treating "right to life" as excluded from govt
while treating "right to health care" as endorsed by govt
constitutes DISCRiMINATION BY CREED.

You don't think I can convince other people to be HONEST
that this discrimination is going on? Like how the discrimination
with marriage has been going on?

10 million dollars says that people will come to agreement on this,
because they want to protect their own beliefs.

So the best way to do that is to respect the same of others,
separate them and set up programs where people can freely
choose to fund their beliefs and not fight to compete with others.

Just invest in your own and both sides get their way.

Why not?

 

[SwimExpert]

Dear USMB Members and Mods:
Does anyone have any references on how to launch a 10 million dollar lawsuit
per petitioner who argues the ACA mandates violates Constitutional rights and principles,
where each petitioner can set a demand, such as for 10 million in damages, be invested
by violating parties into setting up health care that DOES respect people's beliefs.

Such a lawsuit can include petitioners suing for Singlepayer since that is what they believe in,
and petitioners suing for Free Market alternatives on the same grounds. I am thinking both
Parties would need to be sued to pay for the damages (ie 24 billion estimated cost to taxpayers
for the federal shutdown due to the ACA bill being pushed through Congress without resolving
the issues of conflicting beliefs that have still not been addressed nor corrected) to be
invested into respective programs that protect the beliefs of those party members instead of violating them.

Please post if you have any ideas, references or means of support to call for petitioners
to organize and how to launch a drive to form a legal team to petition for immediate correction,
including assessing cases of DAMAGES and DISTRESS caused to citizens and investing
money into health care and medical programs that solve the problems without violating any
rights, laws or principles.

Thank you
EMILY NGHIEM
Petitioner #1

It's actually easy to do what you want....

1 - Meet with a lawyer and tell them everything you've said here.
2 - Wait 30 minutes for them to stop laughing at you.
3 - Leave, because they're still laughing and there's no indication they'll be finished any time soon.

Dear SwimExpert

Would you like to take up the 10 milion dollar bet
that both sides of the health care debate and both
sides of the marriage debate have equal political beliefs that the govt cannot take sides
on without discriminating on the basis of creed?

I'm wiling to bet and raise 10 million dollars that it is
against the spirit of Constitutional principles laws and ethics
for President Obama, Congress and Judge Roberts to endorse
the ACA mandates as federal laws penalizing and discriminating
against citizens whose beliefs and creed were violated by the mandates.

10 million.

If I am the only one making the argument, that's fine.
You can laugh all you want, but are you willing to bet
me 10 million that I am wrong on this?

Are you that sure you are correct that the federal govt
has authority to impose federal mandates regulating
health care choices on buying insurance under penalty of law,
and Constitutional equality and ethics would not require
separating health care policies so that both the
believers in right to health care through govt and
believers in free market health care have EQUAL RIGHTS
to exercise their beliefs through the health care programs of their choice?

You are sure the govt has Constitutional authority to dictate
and penalize the choice of "how to pay for health care" for individual citizens?

And the ACA mandates are not just a poorly hastily passed bill
that needs to be reformed to correct the faults in it.

Are you willing to bet 10 million it doesn't need to be reformed
in order to respect and protect EQUAL Constitutional rights of
both the citizens who believe in Singlepayer health care and want to fund that
and the citizens who believe in Free Market health care and want to fund that.

The federal govt has the right to enforce and require ONE WAY for ALL CITIZENS
and penalize other choices that were not written in the bill as exemptions?
The federal govt has the right to REGULATE ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION
depending on paid affiliation with approved programs inluding religious memberships
to determine which citizens get fined a tax penalty and which are exempted?

Tipsycatlover are you willing to help raise 10 million dollars
if you are both wrong, and I can get other Democratic leaders
to admit that these political beliefs must remain the free choice
of individuals, similar to how prolife cannot be mandated through govt without public consent?

And treating "right to life" as excluded from govt
while treating "right to health care" as endorsed by govt
constitutes DISCRiMINATION BY CREED.

You don't think I can convince other people to be HONEST
that this discrimination is going on? Like how the discrimination
with marriage has been going on?

10 million dollars says that people will come to agreement on this,
because they want to protect their own beliefs.
So the best way to do that is to respect the same of others,
separate them and set up programs where people can freely
choose to fund their beliefs and not fight to compete with others.

Just invest in your own and both sides get their way.

Why not?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear USMB Members and Mods:
Does anyone have any references on how to launch a 10 million dollar lawsuit
per petitioner who argues the ACA mandates violates Constitutional rights and principles,
where each petitioner can set a demand, such as for 10 million in damages, be invested
by violating parties into setting up health care that DOES respect people's beliefs.

Such a lawsuit can include petitioners suing for Singlepayer since that is what they believe in,
and petitioners suing for Free Market alternatives on the same grounds. I am thinking both
Parties would need to be sued to pay for the damages (ie 24 billion estimated cost to taxpayers
for the federal shutdown due to the ACA bill being pushed through Congress without resolving
the issues of conflicting beliefs that have still not been addressed nor corrected) to be
invested into respective programs that protect the beliefs of those party members instead of violating them.

Please post if you have any ideas, references or means of support to call for petitioners
to organize and how to launch a drive to form a legal team to petition for immediate correction,
including assessing cases of DAMAGES and DISTRESS caused to citizens and investing
money into health care and medical programs that solve the problems without violating any
rights, laws or principles.

Thank you
EMILY NGHIEM
Petitioner #1

It's actually easy to do what you want....

1 - Meet with a lawyer and tell them everything you've said here.
2 - Wait 30 minutes for them to stop laughing at you.
3 - Leave, because they're still laughing and there's no indication they'll be finished any time soon.

Dear SwimExpert

Would you like to take up the 10 milion dollar bet
that both sides of the health care debate and both
sides of the marriage debate have equal political beliefs that the govt cannot take sides
on without discriminating on the basis of creed?

I'm wiling to bet and raise 10 million dollars that it is
against the spirit of Constitutional principles laws and ethics
for President Obama, Congress and Judge Roberts to endorse
the ACA mandates as federal laws penalizing and discriminating
against citizens whose beliefs and creed were violated by the mandates.

10 million.

If I am the only one making the argument, that's fine.
You can laugh all you want, but are you willing to bet
me 10 million that I am wrong on this?

Are you that sure you are correct that the federal govt
has authority to impose federal mandates regulating
health care choices on buying insurance under penalty of law,
and Constitutional equality and ethics would not require
separating health care policies so that both the
believers in right to health care through govt and
believers in free market health care have EQUAL RIGHTS
to exercise their beliefs through the health care programs of their choice?

You are sure the govt has Constitutional authority to dictate
and penalize the choice of "how to pay for health care" for individual citizens?

And the ACA mandates are not just a poorly hastily passed bill
that needs to be reformed to correct the faults in it.

Are you willing to bet 10 million it doesn't need to be reformed
in order to respect and protect EQUAL Constitutional rights of
both the citizens who believe in Singlepayer health care and want to fund that
and the citizens who believe in Free Market health care and want to fund that.

The federal govt has the right to enforce and require ONE WAY for ALL CITIZENS
and penalize other choices that were not written in the bill as exemptions?
The federal govt has the right to REGULATE ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION
depending on paid affiliation with approved programs inluding religious memberships
to determine which citizens get fined a tax penalty and which are exempted?

Tipsycatlover are you willing to help raise 10 million dollars
if you are both wrong, and I can get other Democratic leaders
to admit that these political beliefs must remain the free choice
of individuals, similar to how prolife cannot be mandated through govt without public consent?

And treating "right to life" as excluded from govt
while treating "right to health care" as endorsed by govt
constitutes DISCRiMINATION BY CREED.

You don't think I can convince other people to be HONEST
that this discrimination is going on? Like how the discrimination
with marriage has been going on?

10 million dollars says that people will come to agreement on this,
because they want to protect their own beliefs.
So the best way to do that is to respect the same of others,
separate them and set up programs where people can freely
choose to fund their beliefs and not fight to compete with others.

Just invest in your own and both sides get their way.

Why not?

SwimExpert
Drinking ^ hot sauce ^ is not the same thing
as either agreeing to a 10 million dollar bet
or admitting you don't think your side of this argument is 100% defensible.

I believe arguing for the equal political beliefs of both sides is 100% supported by Constitutional
principles of equal protection of the laws.

Are you 100% sure your arguments are right and worth 10 million?

Tipsycatlover how about you?
Would you bet 10 million that you are right and I am wrong
about Constitutional equal protection for both sets of political beliefs
in the
* health care debate over the ACA mandates and federal regulations of citizens
* marriage debate over whether the state should or should not endorse same sex marriage,
traditional marriage only, or neutral civil unions and contractual agreements (and leave any contested marriage terms and description of personal relations to the people and private discretion/choice)
* separation of funding concerning abortions, the death penalty, stem cell research,
and any other policy or program argued as being against the beliefs of dissenting taxpayers
who petition to fund alternatives instead

 

[emilynghiem]

See, I offer to bet money on who's right
me or SwimExpert and Tipsycatlover

I'm so sure that Constitutional equal protections would call for
equal treatment of political beliefs on all sides, and mediation
to resolve conflicts and form consensus on policies before passing them,
that I am willing to raise and bet 10 million on this.

But I ask these two if they would bet 10 million on their own opinions,
and they don't answer.

Is anyone on either side willing to take a bet?
dblack do you believe the ACA mandates should be struck down as
unconstitutional and/or discriminatory

What I offered on the bet that a process of reaching a consensus on God and Jesus
could be proven to be based on forgiveness as the factor that determines if
both theists/nontheists can reach agreement on points and principles without changing each other's beliefs,
was for both sides to raise 5 million each (theists who believe spiritual healing and a process of reaching a consensus on the meaning of God and Jesus can be proven to follow a predictable pattern based on forgiveness as the key factor in whether people change or not; vs. nontheists who don't believe science or social statistics can be used to demonstrate a predictable pattern and/or correlation but believe bias will always prevent objective scientific study or demonstration).

Then if one side wins the other has to donate their 5 million to the charities of the winning side choices.

So can we do something similar here.
Given the 24 billion estimated cost to taxpayers from the federal shutdown over the budget dispute due to ACA mandates, can we make a bet between members of both sides/parties
* conservatives who believe in free market health are and federal govt cannot regulate choices without a constitutional amendment (but this belongs to people and states to vote on democratically so there is no taxation without representation, and no involuntary servitude by forcing people to give up income to buy insurance or pay federal tax penalty)
* liberals who believe health care is a right and federal govt has the authority to compel taxpayers simply by vote of congress and ruling by courts to make this legal and enforcible DESPITE any beliefs that this violates
that since both sides have equal beliefs, then govt should either respect both or refuse to endorse either one and remain neutral, either leaving it to the people, states, parties or private groups to decide, or requiring them to pay for their own programs and not impose on each other, for example. In any case, Govt should respect all beliefs equally and only pass policies and reforms that do not discriminate against one belief or creed or another.

How about if we bet the Democratic Party 24 billion and ask them to pay that back if they were wrong in pushing for the ACA Mandates?

And in turn, Democrats could argue the Republicans who backed Bush's war can pay back trillions in war spending that was contested as unconstitutional and outside Congress/Presidential power to declare war without a direct attack by Iraq on the US or whatever the argument was (when I looked up the UN resolutions, there was not specific language or protocol that the required step after the inspections conflict was going to war. there was still room for another resolution or meeting to reach an agreement on what step to take next, and going to war was not agreed upon due to the dispute over the justifications presented.)

Why can't taxpayers demand that both parties raise the money to pay back these debts
if they disagree and accuse the other of making unconstitutional decisions at our expense?

If so, where is our refund for abuses of govt authority that are contested and not approved to pay for?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Would you like to take up the 10 milion dollar bet that both sides of the health care debate and both sides of the marriage debate have equal political beliefs that the govt cannot take sides on without discriminating on the basis of creed?"

Equality of political beliefs are not protected as civil rights, Emily.

The Constitution would have to be evaluated differently, and neither SCOTUS nor Congress will do anything such thing.