Constitutional arguments against ACA mandates

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 12

Constitutional arguments against ACA mandates Mar 2, 2015 20:53:27 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 20:53:27 GMT

Before drafting a petition to reform ACA mandates, I am posting arguments based on Constitutional principles.

Please post any corrections, suggestions or solutions that address the objections brought up on this thread.

Thank you!

Emily Nghiem
www.ethics-commission.net

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 12

Constitutional arguments against ACA mandates Mar 2, 2015 21:01:24 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 21:01:24 GMT

Though many consider it a victory that the Supreme Court struck down the argument justifying ACA under the "general welfare" clause,
the controversy is that ACA was argued as a tax, and that is the argument that was ruled constitutional.

The problem being
(1) it was not argued and passed through Congress as a tax, or it would be struck down; because it was argued as a public health bill, presumably under the general welfare duty of federal govt, there was understanding this would not get past the Supreme Court and sure enough it did not -- under that format.

So the bill STILL did not pass both through the Congress and the Courts as either a
a. tax -- where this passed through the Court but was never voted on as a tax through Congress
b. general welfare application -- where this passed through Congress, but was struck down by the Court
but passed as a hybrid that changed form in midstream

(2) even if it were counted as a tax, this is debatable whether it originated in the House or not
a. some argue that since the ACA was a REVISED version of a previous bill, then the ORIGINAL form did originate in the House
b. others argue that it was changed too much, adding much more to it that was not there before,
and therefore it was a New bill, and not recognizable enough to be the previous bill reformed

(3) either way, the bill does NOT reflect the consent of the taxpayers affected either by
a. no taxation without representation as shown above

b. not depriving citizens of liberty without due process to show what crime has been committed that justifies loss of freedom to govt requirements, especially ones that were not prescribed by law in advance of this change

c. also related to no involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime

d. separation of federal govt from rights reserved to the states or to the people, where a Constitutional amendment is required first before granting new powers to govt at the level that ACA created new roles

e. not establishing a religion, as in favoring the belief in the "right to health care" over "states rights" and by regulating exemptions on the basis of religion and creed, where only govt-sanctioned programs are legally recognized and other choices of individuals or groups are fined if these are not proven and recognized first.

f. violating equal protection of the laws by discriminating on the basis of creed, by exempting citizens from taxes who comply with beliefs in federally mandated health care requirement while penalizing citizens with taxes for exercising their beliefs in freedom of choice to pay for health care in other ways that are not crimes.

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 12

Constitutional arguments against ACA mandates Mar 2, 2015 21:14:55 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 21:14:55 GMT

I got into a heated debate with friends who insisted ACA was the law of the land and wasn't going to change.

I argued the Constitution was the law of the land, and ACA was in conflict with it.

I said I would bet 10 million dollars the Constitution would prevail over ACA mandates, and if I were wrong, and couldn't convince the President and Democrats to allow the mandates to be changed to voluntary and/or to States' to decide, then I would go on a hunger strike by the end of the year if necessary corrections weren't made by then.

I argued that it was unconstitutional to mandate health insurance through federal govt because there were two different beliefs that split the vote almost evenly 50/50 in both Congress and in the Supreme Court 4-5:

1. the belief held by Democrats and liberals in the right to health care, even through federal govt over states' rights
2. the belief held by Republicans and conservatives in health care belonging under states' rights not federal govt

And both times the creed of one group was unconstitutionally imposed over the other;
instead of allowing the OPTION of govt health care through states which would have satisfied both.

I said if the mandate wasn't changed to VOLUNTARY by the end of the year, I would go on hunger strike:
1. either establish an agreement that political beliefs are creeds that cannot be discriminated against by govt, much less penalized and forced to change in favor of other creeds, and thus recognize and allow people of all creeds to be under the policies of their choice that don't violate their beliefs
2. agree to allow all groups to add their own regulations and requirements in order to be held to federal mandates, such as requiring "spiritual healing" diagnosis, treatment and therapy for all participants to reduce the cost of health care; and if citizens cannot agree on the terms of the global mandates, then these should remain local
3. agree to allow States' choice in how to work with their citizens to reform health care, and under what terms, deadlines, and criteria, such as by reforming prison programs to invest state resources in education, medical programs, and more sustainable means of providing care to the greater population.

I do not want to keep having these same arguments where I am HARASSED for my beliefs in the
Constitution protecting equal beliefs in states' rights as the beliefs in right to health care.

Those are Equal Creeds under the law by Constitutional principles, and I REFUSED to deny that.

As a Democrat I am ready to ask Obama and the Supreme Court to recognize the "discrimination by creed" caused by imposing the mandates that exempted and represented the citizens and party holding one belief, while depriving citizens of liberty and equal protections, by penalizing and consequently HARASSING people for our Constitutional beliefs (including but not limited to: people who believe the mandates violate States' rights, people who believe they violate involuntary servitude without due process before depriving liberties, and people like me who believe that political beliefs are protected equally as religions or creeds by the First and Fourteenth Amendments).

I hold that the govt cannot force anyone like me to "change my beliefs" or pay an additional tax; but participation in the ACA programs, mandates and regulations should be VOLUNTARY where taxpayers have equal representation in the TERMS by which we are required to give up our liberty and taxes to pay for. (If the Democrats believe in mandatory participation, they can CHOOSE this as their beliefs, but cannot FORCE beliefs on others through govt except by CONSENT of those citizens.)

Only if people agree that such political beliefs can be adopted through the STATES
it may be possible. But must still respect the political beliefs of citizens and cannot impose
polices of one belief over the other, without consent of the people whose beliefs are at stake.

Please help me NOT to have to go on hunger strike over this.

If I am using knowledge of Constitutional laws that is taught in Eighth Grade History, to understand that two conflicting political beliefs are at stake and both are protected equally by law, surely the President of the United States, members of Congress, and Justices of the Supreme Court who are supposed to uphold the Constitution should be competent enough to recognize political beliefs.

If this is not resolved by the end of the year, or by the time my work insurance expires and forces me to be liable for a tax penalty against my Constitutional beliefs, then I will go on hunger strike to protest this conflict.

I do not believe that Obama and the Democrats are that blind to the fact their partisan agenda constitutes a political belief. If they are that biased and have that much conflict of interest with the Constitution of the United States, that they cannot correct a simple error by simply changing the mandates to be voluntary, such officials should be removed from office.

Thank you.

I do not want to keep having this same fight and being harassed for defending
not only my beliefs, but the protection of other beliefs against federal infringements.

I was not able to explain that beliefs can only be overridden for govt sake IF THOSE PEOPLE AGREE VOLUNTARILY -- but cannot be forced or fined by govt for not changing their beliefs. I even tried to explain that citizens cannot be deprived of liberty without due process, or forced into involuntary servitude unless convicted of a crime; but too many people either don't know, don't understand, or don't believe in those laws; they honestly believed if the govt mandated they pay taxes a certain way, that is the law of the land.

The problem is the proponents and supporters either do not have knowledge of Constitutional
principles and beliefs, or don't share the beliefs such Constitutional limits apply to federal govt.
Either way, by ignorance or by difference in beliefs, that CANNOT be used as justification
to violate, exclude, penalize or discriminate against my beliefs and others equally protected.

I would like to avoid going on hunger strike by correcting this breach as soon as possible.

Please help.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
ethics-commission.net

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 12

Constitutional arguments against ACA mandates Mar 2, 2015 21:16:07 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 21:16:07 GMT

Why is religious discimination okay? And required by ACA?

1. Supporters of ACA believe it works and offer proof that it "helps more people than it harms."

So do believers in Christianity, yet proponents of ACA would never agree to mandate that.

Unlike ACA, Christianity is free and does not threaten to impose fines if people don't pay for Christian programs and use them. It still works to serve and help more people on a completely voluntary basis, with respect to Constitutional religious freedom to choose. Why can't ACA be optional to choose with equal respect for Constitutional freedoms?

If Christianity cannot be imposed as the only way, why is it okay to impose ACA? if Christianity must be proven first and chosen freely, why not with ACA? If people can merely use majority-vote to mandate ACA for all people, based on faith that it works to solve more problems than it causes, what's to stop the majority of Americans from voting Christianity as mandatory for all?

The proof of the benefits of Christianity in helping more people and cutting costs of crime, disease and abuse in relationships, are well-known and even documented medically.

The testimonies of spiritual healing curing cancer, schizophrenia, abuse, addiction, and other physical, mental, and even criminal illness offer "proof" that it works; yet it is still reserved as a free choice and not mandated by law. Studies have shown that over 80% of illnesses are caused by "unforgiveness"; where forgiveness therapy is found in all methods of spiritual healing. Yet all these therapies based on forgiveness work by "FREE CHOICE" and "voluntary participation."

Why not ACA?

Christianity is optional and unlawful for govt to impose as a requirement to believe in, much less force citizens to pay for under penalty of law.

So why is it okay to require nonbelievers to participate, fund and believe in benefits of ACA? Why are states and businesses required to follow it, or face tax penalties even if they believe in other choices for paying for health care?

If other choices besides Christianity are respected under law, why does ACA impose fines on any other choice besides buying insurance under the regulations prescribed by federal government?

2. On political and religious discriminationi by party: Why do believers in prochoice principles only defend party members who believe in abortion, but deny free choice to people who believe in free market health care? If the principle is the same, to keep federal government and politics out of personal health care decisions and private choices, why is it okay to block regulations on the choice of abortion but impose federal penalties on the choice of health care?

Isn't this discrimination by creed? Has ACA legalized federal regulations and penalties by creed?

If people denounce discrimination against homosexuality, where marriage is only allowed for heterosexual couples, why is it okay to discriminate against people of Constitutional beliefs? Where these views are denounced, denied and overruled as invalid: mocked as excuses to defend immoral greed, similar to arguments denouncing equal rights for gays as enabling immoral lust, or denouncing belief in abortion rights as irreponsible and legalizing murder.

Not only are prochoice advocates actively denying equal choice and discriminating against followers of other parties and political beliefs, including Constitutional beliefs in limits on federal goverment, but are rewarded for discrimination: by being exempted from taxes while Constitutionalists are fined who do not believe in federal authority to impose mandates.

Believers in the choice of abortion being legal, unregulated and unpenalized, apply prochoice principles to DEFEND this choice, putting the "right to choose" ABOVE any other consequences to either women, children, or society for the implications of abortion. Political and religious beliefs in the "right to life" are placed second, if recognized at all, because the "right to choose" is championed as fundamental over faith-based arguments and beliefs.

However, these same people advocate the "right to health care" based on political beliefs in government-managed health care and faith that more lives and costs will be saved, at the expense of free choice. For people of Constitutional belifes, the "right to choose" is NOT DEFENDED but DENIED, INVALIDATED and PENALIZED for those who believe in freedom in health care choices, which the federal government now regulates the ACA.

Why the double standard? Doesn't this constitute religious discrimination to defend and exempit from penalty the "right to choose" for people who believe the choice of abortion should be legal, but to regulate and punish the "right to choose" for people who believe in paying for their own health care outside government regulations. What crime is committed, and where is the due process to prove that citizens had any ill intent before depriving us of liberty?

3. As for penalizing criminals and holding citizens responsible for their own costs, why the double standard on "involuntary servitude"? Taxpayers already pay millions if not billions of dollars per state on prosecution, incarceration, health care and other costs for inmates convicted of crimes; yet these criminals are not required to work to pay their own costs, even if their violent acts put themselves or innocent people in the hospital at public expense.

Defenders of ACA argue that taxpayers should be forced to be responsible for their own health care costs. Opponents argue they didn't agree to the terms and conditions of buying private insurance, and being forced to purchase or to pay fines to government taken from salaries amounts to "involuntary servitude" where no crime was committed or proven by due process.

Why is restitution and reimbursement not pursued for people who have committed crimes and been convicted under due process, because fear of imposing "involuntary servitude" and abusing the labor of inmates. But it's okay to force "involuntary servitude" by taxing the labor of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS without consent or representation on the terms of the contract?

If convicted criminals in prison still deserves human rights not to be forced to work to offset costs of care, why don't law-abiding citizens deserve not to be forced against our will? When we have committed no crime, and should not be assumed in advance to have any such ill intent.

Why are we punished for our Constitutional beliefs in freedom and civil liberties, while those who have different political beliefs than us are rewarded with exemptions and allowed to mandate their beliefs as a "national religion" that all citizens are required to follow or be fined?

Admin Administrator Posts: 12	Constitutional arguments against ACA mandates Mar 2, 2015 21:43:54 GMT Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 21:43:54 GMT MOVED: acareform.freeforums.net/thread/3/draft-aca-petition ========== Draft: ACA Petition, June-July 2014 www.change.org/p/rep-julia-brownley-separate-aca-by-party
	Last Edit: Mar 2, 2015 21:53:10 GMT by Admin

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 12

Constitutional arguments against ACA mandates Mar 2, 2015 21:47:12 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 21:47:12 GMT

Moved to this thread: acareform.freeforums.net/thread/3/draft-aca-petition

Question: If people do not recognize "political beliefs" as part of "religious freedom"
in the First Amendment, or equal protection from discrimination by CREED
as in the Fourteenth Amendment and/or Civil Rights Act, then

(1) Does this mean a clarifying Amendment or revision is required
in Constitutional laws to SPECIFY how "political beliefs" are to be protected equally?

(2) Or can the general process be argued as discriminating by requiring
opponents of ACA on religious grounds to "prove harm is caused"
when no harm is caused to or proven by Atheists who sue to remove a "Cross or Bible."

Doesn't the act of discrimination demean the concept of "equal protection of the law"
regardless of creed? Do I need to prove that bullying and legal costs and burdens
are put on one side to defend beliefs, while no such proof is required of the
other side to prove that "beliefs in right to health care" are more effectively
exercised through the ACA legislation, mandates, tax penalties and exchanges.

Why does one system of belief require proof to defend,
while the other is sanctioned by law and even exempted from taxes while people
are fined for wanting free choice to exercise their own beliefs in paying for and providing health care more cost effectively?

Last Edit: Mar 2, 2015 22:01:05 GMT by Admin

Emily Nghiem
Guest

Constitutional arguments against ACA mandates Mar 3, 2015 20:40:06 GMT

Quote

Post by Emily Nghiem on Mar 3, 2015 20:40:06 GMT

www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-individual-mandate-obamacare-survives/

1. RE: "The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. However, it could be upheld under the government's power to tax."

The ACA was uphold under govt power to TAX and could NOT be upheld under the Commerce Clause (counted as a victory on that point).

2. What I've noticed is whether we argue based on "States' rights" or "involuntary servitude/deprivation of liberties without due process" etc.
as long as we UNITE and enforce the common argument that ACA mandates violate CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS IN GENERAL and that these are a PROTECTED CREED under the First and Fourteenth Amendment, then we AREN'T required to AGREE or to prove "which points are right or wrong" or which belief or interpretation is correct. No proof is necessary in order to defend the right to exercise your beliefs, or that would be regulating religion. There doesn't have to be ONE unified denomination of Christianity before we defend our right to exercise that without being penalized for it by federal govt.

3. Instead of getting tied up in debate over "right to health care" vs. "states' rights" (and which interpretation should prevail) we go ahead and claim our right to our Constitutional beliefs the same as "religion" and govt has NO AUTHORITY to discriminate against, penalize us with taxes while exempting those whose beliefs are favored by the ACA, and also no right to REGULATE on the basis of creed, to determine which religious practices qualify for exemption or not, which is govt regulating religion.

Note: the Tax itself can be argued as punitive and discriminatory by creed by govt regulating
the exemptions by religion, and not considering the belief in states' rights as a political religion that cannot be penalized.

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

^ I would argue this tax is discriminatory, because it is a valid belief that federal govt has no authority to regulate the free choices left to people and to states to pay for health care without federally mandated insurance "being the only way." It's not just the insurance that is the focus of the religiously held beliefs, but the belief that "federal govt does not have such authority" to penalize choices it regulates.

Emily Nghiem
Guest

Constitutional arguments against ACA mandates Apr 23, 2015 15:51:38 GMT

Quote

Post by Emily Nghiem on Apr 23, 2015 15:51:38 GMT

RE: "THIS is about hospitals and medicine, you know. lol"

REPLY:

1. Yes! So why mandate INSURANCE when INSURANCE does NOT build hospitals, train doctors,
or produce any medicine, treatment or services.

It does NOT go into "hospitals or medicine."
YOU ARE DIVERTING RESOURCES AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL SERVICES AND PROVIDERS!

You are mandating that money go toward THIRD PARTY PRIVATE COMPANIES that manage payments.
These do NOT create any services or facilities for the added millions of insured being added to the system.

2. Here is the real push for SinglePayer.
www.facebook.com/pages/Health-Care-For-All-Texas/113828405307607

Even the Universal "Health Care for All" want to REMOVE the private middle man which is insurance companies making money, instead of paying for health care programs directly!

So both sides AGREE they want to get rid of the private insurance "middle man".

3. Where the sides disagree
A. the movement to establish that "health care is a right" see this as a govt duty.
This is a political belief, and is not shared by all people. But this side feels that
mandating it by majority rule or court ruling is sufficient to establish this BELIEF by law as mandatory for everyone. (The rightwing believe a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to be voted on by the States BEFORE adding health care as a duty of federal govt to regulate. So they see this automatic implementation of health care as imposing a BELIEF without going through the process of representing the people, and using DUE PROCESS of LAW before "depriving people of liberty")

B. The free market and limited govt movement
see the SERVICES and MATERIAL MEDICAL RESOURCES/EQUIPMENT
as costing SOMEONE their labor to produce and provide.

So this is NOT FREE.

This cannot be deemed to be FREE without relying on LABOR of people to produce it.

So this must be VOLUNTARY.

It cannot be MANDATED by govt AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE PROVIDING LABOR/RESOURCES
without creating a state of INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

That's FINE if people give CHARITABLY by CHOICE, such as donating services or money to
CHARITY programs, hospitals or investing in medical schools to help serve the public.

BUT IT HAS TO BE VOLUNTARY or its FORCED LABOR.

That's where the left doesn't get it.

If you want something to be FREE you can VOLUNTEER YOUR OWN LABOR
and resources, but cannot force other people to.

And most of all, if there are already charitable programs and people giving to medical foundations,
why not respect those choices?

Why try to override the free choices people make to contribute their resources and labor,
and try to FORCE it through GOVT mandates that VIOLATE people's beliefs?

This is where the left has lost it.

You wouldn't allow Christian groups to force everyone in the nation to fund THOSE CHARITIES
no matter how many lives would be saved.

Yet the left is doing this with THEIR political beliefs, and trying to pass this as secular govt.

It's still a BELIEF about health care, and the flaw is mandating that other people
volunteer their labor to pay for services, instead of keeping this VOLUNTARY.

Voluntary participation and giving is in keeping with HUMAN NATURE and free will.

Trying to override that is going against the natural laws of how human free will works.
So that is what is causing this political split.

The left understands free will when it comes to free choice of abortion.
But someone has lost any sense of free choice when it comes to health care in general.

There is some political bias so engrained,
that people cannot see their own bias when pushing this legislation.

Again, all I can think of, is this is some backlash for when the right
couldn't see their bias in supporting Bush even in military and executive actions that exceeded Constitutional limits.

So the left violates its own principle of prochoice;
and the right violates its own principle of Constitutional limits on federal govt.

That's the only way I can make sense of why these sides are so blinded. They have contradicted their own principles, and wonder why they don't make sense to other people looking in from the outside.

Forum

Constitutional arguments against ACA mandates

Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 20:53:27 GMT

Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 21:01:24 GMT

Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 21:14:55 GMT

Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 21:16:07 GMT

Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 21:43:54 GMT

Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2015 21:47:12 GMT

Post by Emily Nghiem on Mar 3, 2015 20:40:06 GMT

Post by Emily Nghiem on Apr 23, 2015 15:51:38 GMT

Quick Reply