It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Checks and balances

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Picture it. The forefathers decided that it'd be in the best interests of our nation and its citizens to code something into our system of government called checks and balances. I heard the phrase a few times in grade school I believe, if I did it wasn't said often. What they were supposed to be is juxtaposing sides of the levels within the legislative, judicial, and executive branches that have ever changing people holding the various positions or seats. Then, those 3 branches check and balance each other to an even greater level. An opposition to anything, if popularly supported therefore not unfounded or illegitimate, will check the force in power from going too far in their fervor with their majority power to change things completely and drastically. It's almost as if the forefathers understood human psychology, especially from the point of politics and law in a moderate, unbias perspective.

I know from my point of view, maybe because I'm not caught up in the mud throwing hate fest demonizing and making fun of the opposing side because I'm not on one, but I think both sides are NEEDED, badly. I used to be left, went moderate as i got older, leaned right a bit, then ended up moderate which I believe I'll be forever. I call it clarity, the truth, etc. Sometimes a Democratic idea or leadership is good, sometimes a Republican one, and that goes for all things at all levels locally, regionally, and nationally. If EITHER side had all seats we'd be in for a horrible outcome. With the way many of you talk, you'd go for and be very happy with a Government that was entirely Republican in every way imaginable, a one party system or multiple parties but all different flavors of right wing, from left leaning to moderate to extremist. You know, shift the whole political bar to the right and the blue side doesn't exist anymore. Just an observation.
edit on 11/4/2018 by r0xor because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 4 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: r0xor

It seems the antithesis of what our founding fathers wanted, but wishing for a landslide win for one side is probably the only way anything will ever change. With a balance of power between the two parties all we get is obstructionism and party politics. A stalemate. I agree that a huge imbalance of power will probably be a bad thing but at least there is potential for something good to be achieved. Of course the other side won't see it that way, but you can't have potential without power. Either one side gets some motive force or we keep staring at each other with war paint on never accomplishing anything.



posted on Nov, 4 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   
How about this:

I hope the Democrats take the House back, not because I'm in cahoots with or fond of the Democrats. I agree with many of the criticisms I read here about them. It's because.. sanity.



posted on Nov, 4 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   
The separation of powers in the Constitution has been trumped through what is called the Unitary Executive, where powers once held by Congresss (war for instance) are now held by the President. The powers once held by Congress have been whittled away and absorbed by activist judges and the President. Congress also gave away the power to create currency through the Federal Reserve Act.

Presidential powers and the judiciary need to be restored to their rightful spheres of influence. Government as whole should be done more by the respective states than at the Federal Level, all of which needs severe trimming of redundancy and bloat.
edit on 4-11-2018 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2018 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: r0xor

If we're to continue on as we have then your premise makes complete sense. Many, myself included, do not like or approve of staying on this course.

One party needs to fail. It will be ugly and messy but necessary. In the vacuum other parties can come to gather more spotlight and rise.

That would be an optimal scenario. Equally as likely, IMO, is that one party rules absolutely.



posted on Nov, 4 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: r0xor

I agree we need at least two parties

I think we need more

However, at this point, the democrats seem so far gone that they need a big loss in my opinion, that will hopefully make them distance themselves from the extremists in their party and go back to focusing on workers instead of playing identity politics and cheering for regime changing wars



posted on Nov, 4 2018 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Very well said guys. I'd be just as happy if they failed than if they take the house. But beware, you may not like the things that grow out of the corpse of the Democratic Party.




posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: r0xor

Parties were something the FF didn't want.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: r0xor

Democrats and liberals aren't the problem. Militant progressives are. They are the KKK of the Democrat party.




top topics



 
5

log in

join