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.

 

Government FOR the People not Government OF the People.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Government of any nation should be on behalf of the People and therefore FOR their benefit and not for the benefit of Government. Government OF the people does not signify democracy but rather autocracy as the people share little part in the decision making process.

This is my take on the meaning of the above phrase. I have to say I am not sure where the phrase came from or if I made it up!

This (Government OF) is the common system of the so called ‘democracies’ of the Western world where the ‘leaders’ are elected and from that point on there is little or no input by the people into the decision making processes. This means that laws can be passed which would not have been passed if put to the people, and as often as not these laws will be detrimental to the common 'man'. Modern parties laughingly talk about a ‘mandate’ from the people and then proceed to do just as they please.

I am not sure how you get round this problem but there has to be a method whereby the Government do the peoples bidding (Government FOR the People) rather than in accordance with their own agenda against the best interests of the People. (Government OF the People)

I think it would have to be something along the lines of ballot initiatives. This extract from Wikipedia gives a sample:


Switzerland
It was included in the Swiss Federal Constitution in 1891, permitting a certain number of citizens (currently 100,000) to make a request to amend a constitutional article, or even to introduce a new article into the constitution. The right of initiative is also used at the cantonal and communal level in Switzerland (all cantons, all communes where the direct democratic citizens' participation originates); many cantons allow initiatives to enact regular non-constitutional law, but the federal system does not.

If the necessary number of supporters is reached, the initiative will be put to a referendum about two or three years later; the delay helps prevent short-term political moods from getting into the constitution. The parliament and government will both issue their official opinions on whether they recommend voting for or against the proposed amendment, and these opinions will be printed on the ballot.............

Ireland
Provision for the initiative was included in the 1922 constitution of the Irish Free State but was hastily eliminated when republicans organised a drive to instigate a vote that would abolish the Oath of Allegiance, which was nevertheless later abolished by the government. The current 1937 constitution has no initiative.


What do people consider this might mean and how could/would it be implemented? How could Government FOR the people be introduced?




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
First: 50 lashes with a barbed wire cable to anyone who says We "live in a democracy".( news heads or politicians included).

In fact the founders were very specific thankfully :we live in a "constitutional republic". A raw democracy is "mob rule" where51% can vote themselves whatever they want.

If 51% decides you have a nice farm with a really nice pond they could vote together( 51%vs 49%: you get to vote too so its fair!) You would lose that farm to "the people"( think " Obama money" and his stay-ash") . In a constitutional republic the rights of the little guy are protected from the tyranny of the mob by the rule of law.
edit on 2-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


Added: Y you "get around this problem" by following theexisting constitution and supporting rights of the individual citizen.
edit on 2-2-2011 by 46ACE because: added...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Once apon a time in wonderland we had a constitutional republic. since about1913 on it has turned from a socialist- to now dam close to a communist! -ie obama healthcare plan, social securtiy, welfare, unemployment, etc, etc.
So yes op at one time this republic was the first of its kind, without a feudalist view and without enlightenment from the monarchy.
And yes they where suppose to work for the people, but as you can see in any given day that metaphor has since changed.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


Let me ask a question then. How would this be applied to say the UK or Ireland which has never had a constitution such as the US?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 



we live in a "constitutional republic". A raw democracy is "mob rule" where51% can vote themselves whatever they want.


How does that differ. Don't Americans vote for their Government? Does the 51% not apply in America, and if not how is that?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


It will never happen for the UK, as they have a monarchy, awe it is played off as a democracy of sorts, but dont let that fool you, the queen is enlightened by the gods, Have you ever heard the term that the sun never sets on Great Brittain? That is exactly it, UK, was lucky to get the Magna Carte instituted, if not for that, the UK, would still be a feudalist society. Other than the above response, everything is all hypotheticals



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 





I am not sure how you get round this problem but there has to be a method whereby the Government do the peoples bidding (Government FOR the People) rather than in accordance with their own agenda against the best interests of the People....


I and a lot of others have considered this problem. Specifically our Founding Fathers here in the USA. That is why there is a system of checks and balances and why the Power hungry Sociopaths have done their best to get around the system.

What needs to be done is to put the country back on track with the checks back in place in place.

JURY
As a people, our last resort is the guarantee of a trial by jury. To defeat this final check on irrational laws, the country has been flooded with idiotic regulations and laws that tie the courts up in knots. Also juries are informed by the judge they are only to determine if the person is guilty of breaking the law, when in actual fact the jury, especially a Grand Jury has wide ranging powers including investigation and determining if the LAW should be nulified!

The fully informed jury movement: www.fija.org...

FIJA seeks to require that juries be informed of their nullification rights. Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature.

...the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts -- to nullify the law if it chose -- became part of British constitutional law.

It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, but you'd never know it listening to jury instructions today almost anywhere in the country....

Now a remarkable coalition has sprung up to challenge this secrecy as undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous. Though organized by libertarian activists, the Fully Informed Jury Amendment movement includes liberals and conservatives...

...many groups in this country feel the government has overstepped its power in some way and that there must be protection for the natural rights of American citizens. They are defending not only the right to protest or carry a gun or not wear seatbelts but challenging the right of the government to decide such matters without the mediating effect of a jury's judgement of fairness in a particular case.



State Nullification - Tenth Amendment
State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

In the many discussions across several states, questions have arisen concerning exactly how the "Tenth Amendment Resolution" will help....

The principal motivation came from the myriad of federal mandates which have been placed and are planned to be placed on the states. State legislatures feel they have little choice but to implement these mostly-unfunded mandates and pass the cost for implementation to the state taxpayers. For most state legislators, this is a very frustrating dilemma.

The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp. Article IV, Section 4 says, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government.....", and the Ninth Amendment states that..."The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

We have, through apathy and lack of will, allowed federal legislators and bureaucrats to assert their will over us and commandeer our funds for their own use.... most of it today outside the authority granted to them by the Constitution.

When a state passes this resolution proclaiming its sovereignty, that state may then claim exemption to most federal mandates under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution....
by Colorado State Senator Charles Duke
www.sweetliberty.org...



Another weapon, one every single one of us should be pushing for, is state law allowing voters to recall federal Senators and Representatives as well as state officials.
Recall Congress Now Org

However this will be a bitterly fought battle. The last thing TPTB wants is their pet legislators worried about what the voters want instead of what they have been bribed to do.


While 18 of the 50 United States offer their citizens an opportunity to recall their elected officials, it is a fact that in our nation’s history, no federal legislator has yet been recalled.

It has not been for lack of interest. Rather, the process has languished in part due to debates on whether or not legal authority exists for recall of U.S. Senators and Congressmen; and, in the case of Idaho, interference by a state court prevented recall of a federal legislator....

After reviewing the body of law and opinion concerning recall, it is apparent that if recall of federal legislators is to succeed, it will likely only be after an intense battle in the federal court system as to the degree to which the courts will go to allow the literal meaning of the Tenth Amendment to be in force and effect.

As this author reads this language, it appears clear that " the States ‘ and " the people " living with in them, should be recognized to have the right of recall.

But in order to implement a strategy that will enable recall petitions to result in actual removal of errant Senators and Congressmen, considerable legal and political obstacles will present themselves and can only be overcome by understanding the lengths to which those opposed to recall can be expected to go...

Eighteen states have recall provisions. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin all have recall of some kind available to their voters. Only seven of these states require any grounds.
www.uscitizensassociation.com...


Judges: Appointed vs elected? That is another question we as voters need to think very very carefully about.


The problem is we the people have been asleep and allowed the District of Criminals to do as they will WITHOUT check! How many Congress critters have been in DC for 10, 20 and even 30 years without being replaced?



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by allprowolfy
reply to post by PuterMan
 


It will never happen for the UK, as they have a monarchy, awe it is played off as a democracy of sorts, but dont let that fool you, the queen is enlightened by the gods, Have you ever heard the term that the sun never sets on Great Brittain? That is exactly it, UK, was lucky to get the Magna Carte instituted, if not for that, the UK, would still be a feudalist society. Other than the above response, everything is all hypotheticals

We're a representative democracy. Our Queen has # all to do with running the state, she just signs off laws.

Also we do have a constitution, albeit an unwritten and ever-changing one.




top topics



 
3

log in

join