Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Detailed Perfection
This would easily be addressed by dissolving the party system altogether, which is something I support. No more 'voting along party lines', and
such... Each candidate would be an Independent, regardless of political philosophy. Wanna guess who would have the majority in Congress??? WE
WOULD! THE PEOPLE!
Then the primary system would be simple. Just pair down the x number of candidates to two, the top two vote getters in the primary, again, regardless
of political philosophy...
Who would win with this scenario, WE WOULD!
This would be truly Change we could believe in!
Finally! Political Parties are not mandated by The Constitution for the United States, and there is no practical need for them. In his Farewell
Address, George Washington gave dire warnings to the evils of political parties, pointing out that they pander to the lowest common denominator and
only work to further divide an all ready divided populace.
There just is no need for political parties. That said, I am not so sure it would be Constitutional to just simply "dissolve" the all ready
existing parties. People have the right to form organizations and to use those organizations to push forth their own political agenda.
This is why lobbying can not be so easily regulated. People have the right to free speech and to petition their government for a redress of
grievances, as both Carseller and Ownbestenemy have pointed out.
One of the real problems that I think exists in the U.S. today is that far too many of the People believe their only method of reigning in out of
control government is through voting. While voting is, to be sure, a method of exercising civic duty and attempting to push the government in a
certain direction, it is only the least of what People can do to ensure that freedom and rights are protected.
In fact, relying upon a government to protect your own rights can be a dicey proposition at best. History has shewn, (to emulate our Founders), that
government officials will see their job as one of reigning in the freedoms of People, rather than protecting them.
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual
freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of
irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."
~Bill Clinton - MTV's "Enough is Enough" 4-19-94~
Clinton, in a remarkable contrast to his usual prevarications, was speaking in a refreshingly honest way. Refreshing in that he was being honest
about how politicians tend to view freedom and governments responsibility to limit it. Tired and stale in his assertion that rights and freedom were
given to the People by government, instead of acknowledging that rights and freedoms pre-exist governments.
The most telling remark of Clinton's is the last sentence which states:
"When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it"
It is statements like that which gained Clinton his appropriate moniker "Slick Willie". In an uncanny Orwellian remark, he suggests that the abuse
of freedom means freedom must be limited. However, the only abuse of freedom is when one or more people are abrogating and derogating the rights of
another person or group of people. We have the right to do whatever we want, as long as what we are doing is not trampling all over the rights of
others. That is freedom, and requires no limitation.
When freedom reigns, the land is just. When freedom is limited there is an absence of justice and those who are having their freedom curtailed must
do what is necessary to put justice back in. To think that all a person can do to put this justice back in is vote, greatly undermines the inherent
political power of the People.
The People did not at any time surrender their inherent political power and at all times hold it. What has happened, due in a large part to the
canard that all the People can do is vote, is that many people have abdicated their power and submitted to the usurpation's of tyrants.
I have come to the conclusion that it matters not how much money a person spends on lobbying and gifts to politicians, if individuals are politically
savvy and know the law well enough to understand that they do not have to submit to legislation that is contrary to the Constitution, or acts to
abrogate or derogate their natural rights.
If a person wants to show more civic duty and strive for "social justice" then they must do far more than simply vote. They must embrace their
responsibility to serve as a member of a jury and to take seriously their oath to uphold the law, understanding that the Supreme Law of the Land is
It is often put out, untruthfully so, that there are three ways to legislate law. Those three methods being:
2) Presidential Veto or signing of law
3) Judicial order or holding
While these three methods are truly three ways to legislate law, there is a fourth method which is demonstrable through voter propositions, and then
finally a fifth, which is "jury nullification", an unfortunate term used to describe the jury's right to refuse to convict a person of a crime
simply because a statute calls it a crime.
Finally, free people do not have to do anything contrary to their own freedom. There may be a government in place committed to contradicting what I
just stated, but there is no natural and just law that requires People to submit to tyranny. Don't do it! Live free, flourish and prosper!!