It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Solution: End the US Constitution, Congress, Supreme Court, POTUS and all political parties!

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:47 AM
It's all failed! Why? Because we 'elect' people to represent us, instead of representing ourselves. Each congress person 'represents' something like 700,000 people. Impossible! Even if the guy you vote for would represent you, when he loses, you're out. Half the people always lose, and then have to wait in disappointment for years for another chance to potentially lose all over again.

If you want to be lead, then you will always be the slave you already are. If this were to be a movement, let it be a leaderless Leader Movement, where you lead yourself. This may all sound insane, but when you see what this is all about can you say I'm wrong?

Half of the people out there don't even vote. Why? I'll tell you. They already understand that it's irrelevant. There's so many important issues to try and understand, and now we're supposed to study up on all of these different candidates at different levels and try to figure out if they'll represent us. Odds are, not well enough, at best. Most of the people who didn't vote in 2008 likely understand that both McCain & Obama are puppets. If I'm not mistaken, virtually every political poll is formed by polling registered voters. The non-voters likely don't even want to be led to begin with, which is good. If you don't want to be led, then you lose either way. If only we could choose what laws are passed, and what is funded, and what isn't...

Few people even take the time to really understand the issues. Why? Considering what's already been covered, and will be, why bother? If you can't participate directly, and are almost sure to always be disenfranchised, why get all caught up in the drama?

Hardly anyone pays attention to or participates in petitions. Why? Odds are they're irrelevant. Suuure... you can sign a petition, and mail it in, and it goes to the shredder. If people believed petitions would do anything most would be involved. It's hard to find the important petitions anyways. It's not like they're hanging up at the local Post Office.

Few protest. Why? Because it's a rare day that it has any bearing on policy whatsoever. Why go and get shot by various painful devices, by thugs in storm trooper armor, for no reason? It makes no sense.

The US Constitution is flawed. Why? Because even though it did its job over 200 years ago, it still eventually leads to the system and situation outlined above. It isn't specific enough about limiting power, for the modern world. How to upgrade it is what this is all about...

Most congress critters are crooks. Why? Because they can vote themselves raises. Because they can get elected again and again. Because they have to do whatever it takes to get elected again, to perpetuate their own prestige. Because the system inherently involves special interest groups. Because the system inherently has those special interests groups going directly to the congress critters instead of directly to us. Because they don't have to read the legislation, and half of them don't even know how to read the language its written in even if they tried.

Presidents are absolutely corrupt. Why? Because they are a product of all of the above, and the rest of the system built up around DC only allows the corrupt from their ranks. The office of president has too much power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Supreme Court is no better off. Why? Because the 'justices' are selected by the President, and are 'confirmed' by the congress critters. And on top of everything else, they get lifetime positions. How many justices have you ever heard about getting thrown out for being scoundrels? How many Supreme Court justices can YOU even name (event though they have the most power in the government)??? If you confirmed them yourself you'd know all about their names and what they're about.

Elitists and their banks and multinational corporations wield the true power. Why? Because the system is designed for corruptible humans to be 'elected', and then do things whether we like it or not. The system we know today will always build up under this scheme, to where those with power can electioneer the playing field where we get little choice in the end.

The Iron Law of Oligarchy, states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into oligarchies. The reasons for this are the technical indispensability of leadership, the tendency of the leaders to organize themselves and to consolidate their interests; the gratitude of the led towards the leaders; and the general immobility and passivity of the masses.

Political parties, as we know them, need to go. Why? Because having large organizations inherently leads to the Iron Law. And history has proven that the 2 biggest ones will work together to smash their competitors. Independent candidates can't even get into the debates. If politicians are marginalized then what do we even need political parties for anyways? All we need are philosophies. The more the better. Currently there are only two, oh and some 'unelectable' independents somewhere out there sadly 'embarrassing themselves' by perpetrating their own futility.

Few are willing to FIGHT. Why? Because even if we voted out all of the incumbents, and undid most of the unconstitutional 'laws', it would be no time before we're right back to square NONE.

Basic psychology: People will either FIGHT or FLIGHT, when faced with problems. If they know they have no chance, they'll go back to American Idol to enjoy whats left of the party, like it's going out of style, because it is. If people even stop to think things all the way through, they'll end up realizing it will just go back to the way it was. No wonder all of those 'sheep' 'idiots' out there go into denial. If the most powerful system ever is evil, yet you can't do a thing about it, why messy up your outlook on life in acknowledging it?

What goals can the overwhelming majority even agree on to be worth fighting for, that isn't merely the same flawed system aforementioned? Why fight, and face death, when the pay off isn't as grand for us today as it was for those who fought in the original rebellion? Tyrants won't just hand over power. It doesn't take a genius to understand that, meaning, anyone can see the stakes of trying to truly take the power back will understand the lack of payoff for the risk involved.

Accountability? Nice try! Government accountability is dictated by all of the above, and below. The career politicians, even when failed, keep their jobs because they were 'elected'. And these same cronies are in charge of firing the government employees below them. Take a look at the total absence of reprimands after 9/11 to realize what a joke the concept of accountability is. It's like a kleptomaniac walking into a store, with no cameras or security tags, with only one employee present (that they know, who lets them steal), and only one customer (up at the front counter). Will the thief steal?

Lets go to the point:

All of the problems above have had me 'lost' trying to find a set of solutions, for over a year.

We need a new system that most can agree on. Who disagrees with any of this, and why? Let's find the solution. Without mass scale agreement, any movement is doomed. As it stands, the motions already in progress, currently only divide. If people want to fund global warming related studies, let them. If people want to fund alternative energy research, into breakthrough technologies, let them. If people want to fund the military, let them. If people want to fund abortion programs, or anti-abortion programs, let them. But let not even one of them fund something they don't support or believe in.

The power of mass agreement, and belief in, is potentially more powerful than the solution itself.

The only way to do all of this, that I've ever heard of or thought of, is...

Consensual Taxation (only).

In practice it's technically not a tax, it's more like donating to what you support.

Imagine your 'tax form' being more like a book, a massive checklist of sorts, where you can go through literally all of the various things the government is trying to do, all of the little things we normally get taxed for, all itemized for you to either ignore, or support.

In addition to this, 'Electronic Direct Democracy' could be heavily supplemental. The idea that we directly participate in the legislative process, further marginalizing the positions of congress and office of president. Despite the thread title, we don't necessarily have to "END" these things, but we do need to to marginalize or transform, end the way they operate as we know them. Sure we need a Supreme Court, but the citizens should confirm them, only by overwhelming majority, with plenty of time to wait it out (due process) to ensure that we know all there is to know about them.

I do realize the pitfalls of the traditional idea of direct democracy: MOB RULE. The premise of mob rule is that the 'mob' rules, not the law. The rule of law has obviously failed, because we have a form of direct democracy, where those with the most power, mobsters, RULE, and all they have to do is keep the masses divided over supporting the policies they perpetrate. The Rule of Law isn't properly enough defined by the Constitution, as proven by our situation. And when it comes to the 'dumb' masses, I doubt they would have ratified the 16th Amendment, Federal Reserve Act, and so on. Now that's all most of us have known our entire lives, its no wonder they roll their eyes when we say fiat currency and income taxes are wrong and illegitimate.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:47 AM
The US Constitution? It needs to be upgraded. Think of it as a computer Operating System. Having been written in the 18th Century, with this being the 21st Century, the original Constitution we all know is the equivalent of MS-DOS, compared to Windows XP. Anyone familiar with Windows OS's, and how they should work, knows that it doesn't take but a handful of months of online use until it becomes corrupted, needing a HD format and re-installation for it to work at full capacity. In our government, the system needed to be re-installed in 1912. In 1913, it went into worm virus meltdown, and somehow it's still going on today, almost 100 years later. We don't just need to reformat the hard disk. We need to upgrade the PC and the operating system.

So yes, END the US Constitution, as it is today. It's impossible that a document written before electricity was invented could have total relevance today, in the 21st Century. Clearly, it wasn't written with enough detail, and clarity, for it to not be manipulated today. We need a wake up drive. Clearly, just trying to return to the Constitution hasn't been enough.

But the masses are 'dumb'? Not quite. Over 200 years ago most people still couldn't read. Today we have the Internet, and most people can. The catch is getting them to wake up and get involved in research, and reflection, and so on. That little challenge is one of the strong points of all of this!

Re-education? No! Education. People need to understand the psychology and social psychology that is used to manipulate them. They need to have a full on deep insight into concepts of tyranny, and imperialism. They need to know all of the aspects and facets of systems that push systems into the Iron Law of Oligarchy. The dark side of systems of politics and economy, Communism and Capitalism included, are necessary aspects of realization, to not all be self-deluded. We all need to understand these things so that we can all consciously work against them. We need to learn this stuff as children, instead of being preyed upon as children by massive advertising firms bent on manipulating us into being mindless brand loyalists for the rest of our lives.

Revolution? Oh, you mean go back in a circle to the past? No! We need a renaissance. Revolving back to 200 years ago is not such.

Am I wrong? Why? Do you have better, or supplementary ideas? I truly want to hear them, all. Weaknesses or additional strengths in any of this? I need to hear them all too.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:46 AM
Very well put together and i've felt the same way for a while. I've kinda always been the guy to cheer from the armchair and drink a beer, knowing that I truly should get out and do something... but something tells me that MOST everyone else out there is just like me. Its a huge burden in life, what with trying to keep up with payments, gas, food, meetings, work and the whole garbage setup they have us endlessly stuck in to try and get out to actually make a difference. The day that there is mass rebelling and a huge march to take back whats truly ours, no not a stupid protest, an actual social and economic change then I will be there by your side brother. Until then, working middle class citizens just cant drop their lives to try and change things cuz they have us stuck.

There was a time when I wanted to but if I had ran screaming into the fray.... who would have heard my cries? I hope we have change soon. S+F... keep fighting and when the day comes when we must have change and everyone is ready to rise up and take it, I will be there.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:54 AM
You have the power right now to abolish this goverment. Individually. To be free of any and all enactments without consent. To live life the way you wish it to be, so long as you do not infringe upon the god given and inalienable rights of other human beings. To form your own government, to make your own society and enactments to be applied are all within realms of possibility.
This is within the abilities of a soveriegn being or free-man on the-land. Instead of attempting to stop the flow, divert it. Little by little the diversion will grow and one day perhaps replace the river of government and constitution (which is for slaves if you actually look into it).

We each have the power within us, we just must claim, learn and use it to meet our requirements.

Fictio cedit veritati - A fiction yields to the truth and Consensus facit legem - Consent constitutes written law.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:48 AM
There's not really time for all of that waiting game, I'm afraid:

25 Questions To Ask Anyone Who Is Delusional Enough To Believe That This Economic Recovery Is Real

#1) In what universe is an economy with 39.68 million Americans on food stamps considered to be a healthy, recovering economy? In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts that enrollment in the food stamp program will exceed 43 million Americans in 2011. Is a rapidly increasing number of Americans on food stamps a good sign or a bad sign for the economy?

#2) According to RealtyTrac, foreclosure filings were reported on 367,056 properties in the month of March. This was an increase of almost 19 percent from February, and it was the highest monthly total since RealtyTrac began issuing its report back in January 2005. So can you please explain again how the U.S. real estate market is getting better?

#3) The Mortgage Bankers Association just announced that more than 10 percent of U.S. homeowners with a mortgage had missed at least one payment in the January-March period. That was a record high and up from 9.1 percent a year ago. Do you think that is an indication that the U.S. housing market is recovering?

#4) How can the U.S. real estate market be considered healthy when, for the first time in modern history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together?

#5) With the U.S. Congress planning to quadruple oil taxes, what do you think that is going to do to the price of gasoline in the United States and how do you think that will affect the U.S. economy?

#6) Do you think that it is a good sign that Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of the state of California, says that “terrible cuts” are urgently needed in order to avoid a complete financial disaster in his state?

#7) But it just isn’t California that is in trouble. Dozens of U.S. states are in such bad financial shape that they are getting ready for their biggest budget cuts in decades. What do you think all of those budget cuts will do to the economy?

#8) In March, the U.S. trade deficit widened to its highest level since December 2008. Month after month after month we buy much more from the rest of the world than they buy from us. Wealth is draining out of the United States at an unprecedented rate. So is the fact that the gigantic U.S. trade deficit is actually getting bigger a good sign or a bad sign for the U.S. economy?

#9) Considering the fact that the U.S. government is projected to have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit in 2010, and considering the fact that if you went out and spent one dollar every single second it would take you more than 31,000 years to spend a trillion dollars, how can anyone in their right mind claim that the U.S. economy is getting healthier when we are getting into so much debt?

#10) The U.S. Treasury Department recently announced that the U.S. government suffered a wider-than-expected budget deficit of 82.69 billion dollars in April. So is the fact that the red ink of the U.S. government is actually worse than projected a good sign or a bad sign?

#11) According to one new report, the U.S. national debt will reach 100 percent of GDP by the year 2015. So is that a sign of economic recovery or of economic disaster?

#12) Monstrous amounts of oil continue to gush freely into the Gulf of Mexico, and analysts are already projecting that the seafood and tourism industries along the Gulf coast will be devastated for decades by this unprecedented environmental disaster. In light of those facts, how in the world can anyone project that the U.S. economy will soon be stronger than ever?

#13) The FDIC’s list of problem banks recently hit a 17-year high. Do you think that an increasing number of small banks failing is a good sign or a bad sign for the U.S. economy?

#14) The FDIC is backing 8,000 banks that have a total of $13 trillion in assets with a deposit insurance fund that is basically flat broke. So what do you think will happen if a significant number of small banks do start failing?

#15) Existing home sales in the United States jumped 7.6 percent in April. That is the good news. The bad news is that this increase only happened because the deadline to take advantage of the temporary home buyer tax credit (government bribe) was looming. So now that there is no more tax credit for home buyers, what will that do to home sales?

#16) Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac recently told the U.S. government that they are going to need even more bailout money. So what does it say about the U.S. economy when the two “pillars” of the U.S. mortgage industry are government-backed financial black holes that the U.S. government has to relentlessly pour money into?

#17) 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement. Tens of millions of Americans find themselves just one lawsuit, one really bad traffic accident or one very serious illness away from financial ruin. With so many Americans living on the edge, how can you say that the economy is healthy?

#18) The mayor of Detroit says that the real unemployment rate in his city is somewhere around 50 percent. So can the U.S. really be experiencing an economic recovery when so many are still unemployed in one of America’s biggest cities?

#19) Gallup’s measure of underemployment hit 20.0% on March 15th. That was up from 19.7% two weeks earlier and 19.5% at the start of the year. Do you think that is a good trend or a bad trend?

#20) One new poll shows that 76 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. economy is still in a recession. So are the vast majority of Americans just stupid or could we still actually be in a recession?

#21) The bottom 40 percent of those living in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. So is Barack Obama’s mantra that “what is good for Wall Street is good for Main Street” actually true?

#22) Richard Russell, the famous author of the Dow Theory Letters, says that Americans should sell anything they can sell in order to get liquid because of the economic trouble that is coming. Do you think that Richard Russell is delusional or could he possibly have a point?

#23) Defaults on apartment building mortgages held by U.S. banks climbed to a record 4.6 percent in the first quarter of 2010. In fact, that was almost twice the level of a year earlier. Does that look like a good trend to you?

#24) In March, the price of fresh and dried vegetables in the United States soared 49.3% - the most in 16 years. Is it a sign of a healthy economy when food prices are increasing so dramatically?

#25) 1.41 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009 – a 32 percent increase over 2008. Not only that, more Americans filed for bankruptcy in March 2010 than during any month since U.S. bankruptcy law was tightened in October 2005. So shouldn’t we at least wait until the number of Americans filing for bankruptcy is not setting new all-time records before we even dare whisper the words “economic recovery”?

See also:
50 Statistics About The U.S. Economy That Are Almost Too Crazy To Believe.
The U.S. Economic Collapse Top 20 Countdown

And that's all just the economic measure. We're backed into the corner... FIGHT OR FLIGHT!?

[edit on 30-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:15 AM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Great post. The reasons you outlined is why I have labeled my own personal political beliefs as a social libertarian. I cannot seem to fit into any one mold. I believe in the people. I believe in limited government. I think WE could make better decisions on how to spend our collective monies. Why spend billions creating infrastructure for new business? Why not spend the money on improving all of our standards of living? Why does it always have to be about providing jobs and not about providing real security in endless supplies of food, housing, medical treatment. Wouldn't it be nice to know your community cares about your well being? That your neighbors are all well taken care of. That we now live in the age of automation and there is nothing that can prevent us from having most everything we desire collectively.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:52 PM
reply to post by ExPostFacto

I like most of your sentiments, but I'm very weary of automation replacing workers. Sounds very Zeitgeist'ish.

I do like the idea of cooperative companies, where the workers own the company together, but am weary of the governments owning them. I'm not sure if that's what you mean?

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:46 PM
Revisiting the Rule of Law:

One item under the rule of law, which the electronic democracy cannot vote against or over-ride, is the inability for government growth to exceed economic growth.

This has been off the charts for a long time:

[edit on 30-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

"Consensual Taxation (only). "

You got that right buddy.

The only way to have a non-criminal government is to prevent it from looting.

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:19 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Thank you, kindly!!

I've spent so much time trying to figure out how to truly take control, and what way could anyone hope to take the power back, other than to take the power?

It's the 21st Century people. It's time we start acting like it. Reason, and a whole new idea of how politics are handled is the future, or we face a future none of us want to be around to witness.

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:53 AM

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The US Constitution? It needs to be upgraded. Think of it as a computer Operating System. Having been written in the 18th Century, with this being the 21st Century, the original Constitution we all know is the equivalent of MS-DOS, compared to Windows XP.

I hate to be the one to tell ya but part of Windows-XP
still runs on MS-DOS. So does Windows 7.

And what you are suggesting is anarchy.
Sorry, but a civilized nation needs governing not enslavement
and when it gets out of control, it will be cleansed
and re-made. Think I'll stick with the MS-Dos thanks.

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:04 AM
reply to post by boondock-saint

Just because XP can run DOS programs doesn't mean it depends on it:

Backward compatibility

Migrating from Windows 9x to XP can be an issue for users dependent upon MS-DOS. Although XP comes with the ability to run DOS programs in a virtual DOS machine, it still has trouble running many old DOS programs. This is largely because it is a Windows NT system and does not use DOS as a base OS, and that the Windows NT architecture is different from Windows

DOS architecture ended with Windows ME.

Despite the uncatchy thread title, I'm not suggesting totally eradicating the Constitution, but rather a major upgrading of it.

Quite frankly I'm surprised how few people are in here defending it.

I fail to see how any of this would be enslavement. Please define. Currently we are slaves, as a result of politicians and their masters.

It's been hundreds of years since it's been cleansed and remade, and every day that goes by stacks the odds more and more against our ability to do it. Besides what I'm talking about is remaking it, not merely cleansing it.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:44 AM

Another key example of why its hopeless having people politicians at the helm: They can be blackmailed. Many argue that most politicians have little hope of even making it big unless the elites have dirt on them that they can ruin their careers with if they step out of line. "Closet homos" and all of that.

Under this precedent, it's too dangerous having so much power in the hands of the politicians. If they're controlled then we're controlled its as simple as that. The elites would be pretty hard pressed to blackmail each and every one of us to try and control how each individual votes or what they fund, much like the special interest groups wouldn't be able to do one on one persuasion with every citizen.

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:30 AM
Group Think

I say end political parties because having parties ensures irrational group think blind loyalty. Instead, for whatever role we intend to be tomorrows version of 'politician' should be, that parties are done. Instead, we get a detailed profile page that covers the issues and the 'politicians' philosophies behind each issue.

Just having "two" parties only equates to obscene loyalty. If the Republicans had their wat Ron Paul wouldn't be allowed to claim to being Republican. Arguably, he he to run republican all those years just to have a shot at making the debates if he ever ran again, like he did in '08.

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:28 PM

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
It's all failed! Why? Because we 'elect' people to represent us, instead of representing ourselves.
If you want to be lead, then you will always be the slave you already are.
There's so many important issues to try and understand, and now we're supposed to study up on all of these different candidates at different levels and try to figure out if they'll represent us. If only we could choose what laws are passed, and what is funded, and what isn't..

Few people even take the time to really understand the issues. Why?

The Utopian society cannot be created out of paper and decrees. The founding fathers created an oligarchy of the rich instead of a monarchy. The communists tried creating equality and failed.
The problem is not with the form of government it is with the people who are governed,(sheeple) and with the people who are governing,(psychopaths). The sheeple want to be led and the psychopaths are more than willing to lead and exploit them.

The solution is not to merely upgrade the constitution but to upgrade the people.
By breeding the top 5% of males to the top 95% of females in each generation the IQ of the population could be raised by TEN points or more along with improvements in health,and all other talents. Thus in 5 generations you could have a population with an average IQ of150 instead of the various population groups with average IQs of 75,85,98,105,110.
You could also breed out the psychopaths. Perhaps it might be possible to
breed people who are more spiritually conscious and less narcissistic.

The PTB are not going to be interested in either changing the constitution to eliminate themselves or breeding smarter people. And the people like themselves just as dumb as they are. Presently TPTB are breeding down the IQ of the sheeple to create the perfect slave class.

As you pointed out all forms of government devolve into tyranny,so to make one more change and expect a different result would be insanity (Einstein).

[edit on 3-7-2010 by RRokkyy]

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:23 AM
Can I ask what of the Constitution has failed? Is it the failure of the Constitution, or the failure of We the People for allowing men and women of ill-repute to distort the meaning of liberty and natural law expressed in the Document?

Can you cite specifically why the Constitution needs to be abolished? Don't just use lines like "it's out dated" Freedom is the only new thing, government that's based on natural law is a new thing. So what would you propose to replace the contract between the people and the state?

The problem isn't the Constitution my friend, it's the lack of respect for it, and OUR failure to recognize threats to it. A failure brought about by our insatiable need to purchase comfort with our freedom.

The only thing that needs to be abolished is a defeatist attitude and the notion that individuals are entitled to anything they didn't work for.

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 02:48 AM
reply to post by projectvxn

Can I ask what of the Constitution has failed? Is it the failure of the Constitution, or the failure of We the People for allowing men and women of ill-repute to distort the meaning of liberty and natural law expressed in the Document?

It's in We The People putting humans in charge of ourselves. The flaw in the Constitution is in putting all of the power into the structure of government, instead of ourselves. That is inherently prescribed fellowship.

Can you cite specifically why the Constitution needs to be abolished? Don't just use lines like "it's out dated" Freedom is the only new thing, government that's based on natural law is a new thing.

I want politicians (as we know them) abolished. The Constitution enables them. That the flaw, and it runs deep. They get exclusive privilege via election until they're terms end. They draft the legislation, which keeps getting worse while stacking upon that before them. They confirm the Supreme Court Justices. They vote on the legislation their ranks write, but they don't read. Their existence as policy makers inherently creates the situation where the special interest groups go straight to them instead of having too convince all of us.

This is what I call unbridled power, which at the same time disconnects people from the world around them.

So what would you propose to replace the contract between the people and the state?

People actually control the state.

I can see how this might sound like an old idea, but don't be mistaken. I'm about the biggest critic of communism and collectivism out there. I argue that having followable politicians and political parties leads to inherent collectivism.

The problem isn't the Constitution my friend, it's the lack of respect for it, and OUR failure to recognize threats to it. A failure brought about by our insatiable need to purchase comfort with our freedom.

I wont argue that there isn't truth there.

But at the same time I argue that people are so disconnected because they're dissuaded from connecting to it.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:03 AM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

My friend, it is not the Constitution that has placed all the power in a select few, it is the abdication of the people in their inherent political power that has done this. Further, beyond the federal Constitution, there are state constitutions and the importance of this, is that where the federal Constitution can sometimes seem obtuse in its acknowledgment that it is indeed the people who hold the inherent political power, state constitutions have a tendency to be far less obtuse about it. Although, I would suggest that the Preamble of the Constitution for the United States of America makes it pretty clear who holds that inherent political power.

The Constitution does not enable politicians, and no piece of paper can do so. People enable, not documents. The "exclusive" privilege you speak of regarding politicians comes not from Constitution but instead from the people who have allowed this privilege to exist. Indeed, the Constitution expressly forbids any entitlement of nobility or any other office of profit or trust. Further, politicians are bound by jurisdictions plainly set forth in Constitutions, and as long as the people continue to remain ignorant of the law, then politicians and other government officials will run rampantly outside those boundaries.

The reason Supreme Court Justices are nominated and chosen by Senate is to ensure that these Justices are not populist and beholden to an electorate, and instead beholding the office they have been appointed to, and that office demands they are beholden to the law, not populism.

Voting on legislation that hasn't even been read is operating outside of the bounds of their jurisdiction, and we the people should hold those who have done this accountable, not simply by voting, but by having them forcibly removed from office by law. Obstruction of justice, simulation of legal process and acting under color of law, are all crimes that are punishable by law.

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 06:21 PM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

revolution?..No we need a renaissance.

This may be the best thing that I've read on ANY forum. Here's to a great idea, eloquently worded. Thanks.

posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:38 AM
That's a great idea.

One problem, what about those who pay little or no tax?

Well I guess they shouldn't have a say as to where monies are allocated right?

So people with disabilities, pensioners (who have paid tax their whole lives), the unemployed etc. These people require taxpayer funded services but if they are not paying tax, they won't get any funding allocated. Nobody is going to allocate their tax money to something that doesn't benefit them.

I say one implementation should be public referendums on all the major issues. Every citizen has a card (like a credit card) and is able to vote anytime on current political issues at voting machines (any A.T.M. could be modified for this purpose).

EDIT - Now that I think about it, the media tells us what's important and how to vote anyway and who owns the media? You guessed it.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by OZtracized]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in