It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ownbestenemy
Aww no fair Own made the republicans sound more evil than the democrats.
As a baby eating republican on this site who has had enough arguments I am guilty of being just as biased as the next guy.
Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.
Originally posted by xuenchen
Maybe a multi-party system is all about checks and balances ?
What happens when we get a single party in full control ?
any [color=gold] examples, recent or past ?
Document showing King Henry VII sitting in the Star Chamber.
Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Political parties are unconstitutional
The founding fathers already divided the powers into camps. Three of them. The legislative, Judicial, and executive. These three branches of government are supposed to disagree, argue, and fight. So no one group has _all_ the power.
The Party system, as it exists in America, undermines this. If one party gets a president, and a majority in the Legislature they have control of government. Judicial appointments are sure to follow. Clean sweep. Grand slam home run.
One should only be able to Join the Legislative party, Executive party, or Judicial party. If you want to run for President join the Executive party. If you want to be a supreme court judge or help them, join the Judicial party.
These elected officials
they work for us,
yet the average American treats them
like pieces of the fantasy football league.
If that isn't laughable, what is.
It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.
It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the facility and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.
Yes it makes Government a pain. That was the point. To provide checks and balances between not only the Federal Government (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) but also to ensure that the checks were spread to the individual States.
The 17th Amendment decimated those checks and gave rise to the current party politics we see today. Think about the "advice and consent" provision levied on the Executive and given to the Senate. That ensured that States wouldn't be subjected to an ever encroaching Judiciary or subject to the "will of the People" as we have seen. Instead, the States would have say in their consent to judges who could, in effect and have, change their stake in the Federal Government and their own sovereignty.