Why are Constitutionalists such wimps? And not suing over the ACA mandates?

[emilynghiem]

I hear Constitutionalist arguments on the radio, from Mark Levin to Josh Blackman, ARGUING that the ACA mandates were clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and that Justice Roberts made a mistake in ruling otherwise. I believe this, too, and so do a number of my colleagues. (Even my Democrat/Green friends who believe in Single Payer denounce the mandates that benefit corporate for-profit insurance which is the opposite of providing health care on a nonprofit basis.)

But none of these people who claim to be Constitutionalists are WILLING TO SUE.

???

* I checked with Jon Roland of the Constitution Society who argues that ACA is Constitutional by how it was passed through Congress and through Courts. ???
How can the content of a bill be UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face, but just because it was pushed through the procedures this magically makes it Constitutional? Despite the conflicts, which make it unconstitutional, that it never resolved?

* Josh Blackman who wrote books on Obamacare and Constitutional arguments also said today "it would be a hard sell" that "probably wouldn't work" to try to argue that the mandates violate political beliefs while establishing or favoring other such beliefs.

So what if it is a hard argument to explain and win?
So was the battle to end slavery, when estates and economy depended on slave labor at the time.

What has happened to our hard fighting Constitutionalists?
Have they all sold out and wimped out because the majority is going with this BELIEF that govt has to manage health care in order to reform it globally?

I have found INDIVIDUALS who believe the mandates are unconstitutional, and willing to sue.

But no lawyers because they "assume" the courts and govt won't change.
What happened to principles?

Even a former leader with the Constitution party said you can't find lawyers willing to fight these Constitutional battles anymore. Have they all retired out and left the courts and bars to people who tolerate liberal philosophies of big govt and courts ruling and controlling everything? Because the politicians make money in a monopoly over courts, govt and the legal profession?

Have they bought out our legal system completely where there aren't Constitutionalists willing to stand up, speak out and fight for principles? But they only pimp the issues for money now?

I'm ready to launch a campaign anyway.
And hope that as individuals stand for our Constitutional beliefs that were violated,
then maybe we will find lawyers willing to argue, and party leaders willing to lobby for change
that would RESPECT these individual beliefs, regardless which party members believe what.

I am arguing that each party should fund its own beliefs, and not impose those on taxpayers.
And give taxpayers a choice of which tracks to fund, so ALL beliefs are protected equally.

Why is that so hard to imagine or change on our tax forms?
Choices A, B, C, D or E.
If you believe in directing your taxes to fund:
(A) the ACA mandates as passed originally
(B) the reform bills pushed recently
(C) none/neither and you want free market choices outside govt mandates and forced taxation
(D) you want health care managed through your state
(E) you want health care managed through your party

Then if any group has a surplus while other groups can't cover the demands of their members agreeing to fund them, then these groups can borrow and lend between them where they agree on the terms of donating, investing, borrowing or lending. And not force any programs on taxpayers who don't agree to pay for those policies.

 

[PredFan]

I don't know about constitutionalist private citizens, but the politicians who claim to be constitutionalist are fucking liars.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

I don't know about constitutionalist private citizens, but the politicians who claim to be constitutionalist are fucking liars.

not all
Amash
Lee
Paul

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know about constitutionalist private citizens, but the politicians who claim to be constitutionalist are fucking liars.

not all
Amash
Lee
Paul

Where's the lawsuit arguing that the mandate establishes the BELIEF that federal govt has authority over health care, and punishes people of conflicting BELIEFS violated by the mandates, laws and rulings through courts and congress?

Nobody is making the argument ON THE LEVEL OF THE LEGAL AND COURT SYSTEM that the advocates have pushed "right to health care as a POLITICAL BELIEF" through govt. And thus the leaders, voters, and supporters behind this have basically abused political party and govt to "conspire to violate equal civil rights" of people for whom such legislation is against our beliefs. (Similar to conscientious objectors who cannot be drafted to serve and/or be punished for noncompliance due to religious beliefs. Except here, it's political beliefs that are in conflict, and govt is being abused to enforce laws favoring one set of beliefs that these policies are constitutional vs. equal beliefs that it is unconstitutional for govt to enforce such laws, mandates and penalties.)

I see people arguing in principle, but not taking action to either write the laws where the funding for these beliefs is SEPARATED, or SUING the party leaders and members RESPONSIBLE and MAKING THEM PAY FOR THE HEALTH CARE POLICIES THEY BELIEVE in.

All I see is people arguing either yes or no, and not changing or correcting the problems with the law/mandates that are making them unconstitutional.

Either change that mandate where taxpayers have a choice of which plans to fund, or SUE to make Congress members or party members write, pass and change those laws if those people are blocking it from changing.

But no more of this business of complaining it's unconstitutional, but not changing the law to correct the faults and SUING to separate the funding.

NOTE: It's not even a matter of majority rule, because look at the transgender issue. Even a fraction of 1% is enough to call out 'discrimination" and exclusion. So why can't the dissenting beliefs be protected equally as LGBT who aren't the majority either!

Discrimination. And that should be enough argument to change or sue to change the mandates to allow equal choice of funding either public or private approaches, instead of majority rule to decide one policy or the other instead of protecting ALL CHOICES AND BELIEFS EQUALLY.

What does it take to change the tax forms to leave this to taxpayer choice which policies to fund???

 

[whitehall]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

 

[Moonglow]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Why doesn't the rightist?

 

[Timmy]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

the left wipes its ass with anything that isnt the second amendment, and anything that IS the second amendment.

 

[Timmy]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

the left wipes its ass with anything that isnt the second amendment, and anything that IS the second amendment.

Bull . Name a right and we'lol discuss . If you can even name a non 2nd right .

 

[emilynghiem]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Dear whitehall: just like there are two major splits in denominations in Christianity, there are two schools of thought between liberals and conservatives.

1. liberals come from the radical liberal track after Rousseau which use govt to establish the common will of the people. Govt becomes the central authority through which all public policy and programs are decided. Thus, rights and freedoms "do not exist" until and unless they are written into law and endorsed by govt.

2. conservatives come from the classic liberal track after Locke which believe rights, freedoms and natural laws are inherent in human nature ie from God, and the Constitutional laws are enforced to LIMIT how much govt takes away these rights and freedoms by regulating collectively instead of individual liberties and rights reserved to people and states.

I am saying let people of both groups live by their own political beliefs, similar to religious beliefs, and keep both out of govt UNLESS there is AGREEMENT on principles and policies.

Where all people of all parties AGREE something should be public/govt policy, then YES we can agree to follow and fund THOSE policies that reflect "consent of the governed."

However, wehre we disagree by beliefs, such as over right to life or right to health care legislation, these should remain private choice, where any collective policy can be CHOSEN by party similar to people CHOOSING to fund or follow religious groups or charities VOLUNTARILY by donating and participating BY FREE WILL.

the minute you make beliefs MANDATORY and punish people for objecting and not wanting to comply, that's when it becomes CULTISH and bullying by either coercion or exclusion. So that's where I equate religious abuse with political and legal abuse.

Forcing people to comply and fund beliefs that violate their own is against the First and Fourteenth Amendments, where both political parties are guilty of discrimination by creed in violation of civil rights.

Govt cannot be abused to either establish/impose nor prohibit/deny the equal free exercise of religious OR POLITICAL BELIEFS.

so crafting ACA mandates and laws as either a yes/no vote is compromising people's beliefs on the opposing sides, and that's why the original bill was opposed and the reform bills can't be passed because they aren't correcting this fatal flaw.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Why doesn't the rightist?

Dear Moonglow: both the far right and far left are so convinced their beliefs are the only right way to interpret laws, they impose this regardless of the beliefs of others. This is a defense mechanism to fight against other people and parties imposing their beliefs.

So both sides imposing on each other are equally in violation.
but they both argue "it's the other party" causing that problem.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

the left wipes its ass with anything that isnt the second amendment, and anything that IS the second amendment.

Bull . Name a right and we'lol discuss . If you can even name a non 2nd right .

the patriot act and NDAA.....Hoebama re-signed the patriot act and signed the NDAA into law.
what about Drone striking an american citizen and his underage son to death, without a trial or even a criminal charge.
Not to mention that under Holder's DOJ; the feds were raiding Marjuana dispenseries in states where weed is legal.
and the forcing of religious organizations to provide funding for birth control and contraception when those two things violate the religious tenants of said organizations.
hate speech laws
what about nanny state bloomberg defending stop and frisk?

 

[BluesLegend]

Why are Constitutionalists such wimps? And not suing over the ACA mandates?

Because the SCOTUS already refused to perform its constitutional duty on ACA, delivering a twisted pretzel of an opinion to punt the problem back to congress.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

Dear Timmy: Before the mandates, people had the freedom to pay for health care through charities, through business plans, through insurance, or directly etc. without being penalized for free choice.

After the mandates, suddenly "free choice" is regulated by govt and/or penalized.

But the citizens who lost our liberty never got to vote on this measure, didn't go through due process to PROVE any crime or abuse was committed and "which people owe govt for what costs."

As for me Timmy, in order to restore the freedom I had before, and to be exempted from ACA all together, I had to pay $45 a month to join a RELIGIOUS organization as one of the few approved by govt.

So basically Timmy, the govt required me to PAY TO JOIN A RELIGIOUS GROUP in order not to be under a law that violated my beliefs.

This was the cheapest and LEAST imposing way I found to restore the original freedom I had to fund health care provisions according to my beliefs which are based on FREE CHOICE, not force of law against people's beliefs, which is against my Constitutional beliefs.

I was required to
(A) pay $45 a month as the cheapest alternative to be exempt f rom this bill I still hold as unconstitutional in violating my Constitutional beliefs
(B) join a RELIGIOUS health share ministry that qualified for exemption

Timmy, before ACA I was NOT required to pay or join a religious group in order to have free choice of how to pay or provide for health care.

AFTER ACA I had to do both A and B and these were the LEAST imposing and MINIMAL ways I found to be exempted in order to exercise my beliefs in free choice I had BEFORE this bill was passed.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

the left wipes its ass with anything that isnt the second amendment, and anything that IS the second amendment.

Bull . Name a right and we'lol discuss . If you can even name a non 2nd right .

The right to have healthcare determined by individuals and the states and not the federal government. Also known as the tenth amendment

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

and furthermore, the GOP are not pro second amendment either, they just arent as actively ANTI-2A as the demonrats

 

[NYcarbineer]

The objection to the mandate went to court and lost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

the left wipes its ass with anything that isnt the second amendment, and anything that IS the second amendment.

Bull . Name a right and we'lol discuss . If you can even name a non 2nd right .

The right to have healthcare determined by individuals and the states and not the federal government. Also known as the tenth amendment

The 10th amendment powers only apply when they are not in conflict with federal law, including federal case law.

 

[Timmy]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

the left wipes its ass with anything that isnt the second amendment, and anything that IS the second amendment.

Bull . Name a right and we'lol discuss . If you can even name a non 2nd right .

The right to have healthcare determined by individuals and the states and not the federal government. Also known as the tenth amendment

The Aca leaves the control to the states . Have you noticed red states have the most issues ? Cause they sabotage the Aca .

GOP hates State rights. They are targeting pot even though all these states are legalizing .

 

[Doc1]

I hear Constitutionalist arguments on the radio, from Mark Levin to Josh Blackman, ARGUING that the ACA mandates were clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and that Justice Roberts made a mistake in ruling otherwise. I believe this, too, and so do a number of my colleagues. (Even my Democrat/Green friends who believe in Single Payer denounce the mandates that benefit corporate for-profit insurance which is the opposite of providing health care on a nonprofit basis.)

But none of these people who claim to be Constitutionalists are WILLING TO SUE.

???

* I checked with Jon Roland of the Constitution Society who argues that ACA is Constitutional by how it was passed through Congress and through Courts. ???
How can the content of a bill be UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face, but just because it was pushed through the procedures this magically makes it Constitutional? Despite the conflicts, which make it unconstitutional, that it never resolved?

* Josh Blackman who wrote books on Obamacare and Constitutional arguments also said today "it would be a hard sell" that "probably wouldn't work" to try to argue that the mandates violate political beliefs while establishing or favoring other such beliefs.

So what if it is a hard argument to explain and win?
So was the battle to end slavery, when estates and economy depended on slave labor at the time.

What has happened to our hard fighting Constitutionalists?
Have they all sold out and wimped out because the majority is going with this BELIEF that govt has to manage health care in order to reform it globally?

I have found INDIVIDUALS who believe the mandates are unconstitutional, and willing to sue.

But no lawyers because they "assume" the courts and govt won't change.
What happened to principles?

Even a former leader with the Constitution party said you can't find lawyers willing to fight these Constitutional battles anymore. Have they all retired out and left the courts and bars to people who tolerate liberal philosophies of big govt and courts ruling and controlling everything? Because the politicians make money in a monopoly over courts, govt and the legal profession?

Have they bought out our legal system completely where there aren't Constitutionalists willing to stand up, speak out and fight for principles? But they only pimp the issues for money now?

I'm ready to launch a campaign anyway.
And hope that as individuals stand for our Constitutional beliefs that were violated,
then maybe we will find lawyers willing to argue, and party leaders willing to lobby for change
that would RESPECT these individual beliefs, regardless which party members believe what.

I am arguing that each party should fund its own beliefs, and not impose those on taxpayers.
And give taxpayers a choice of which tracks to fund, so ALL beliefs are protected equally.

Why is that so hard to imagine or change on our tax forms?
Choices A, B, C, D or E.
If you believe in directing your taxes to fund:
(A) the ACA mandates as passed originally
(B) the reform bills pushed recently
(C) none/neither and you want free market choices outside govt mandates and forced taxation
(D) you want health care managed through your state
(E) you want health care managed through your party

Then if any group has a surplus while other groups can't cover the demands of their members agreeing to fund them, then these groups can borrow and lend between them where they agree on the terms of donating, investing, borrowing or lending. And not force any programs on taxpayers who don't agree to pay for those policies.

Why don't you file then?