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.


OwnBestEnemy's Political Ideology

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 10:16 PM
I think it is a good practice to place our ideologies to the test. To place them in the free market place of ideas to be tested, debated and observed for the greater understanding of the Human condition. My ideology is mixed at best, with strong undertones of Federalism and understanding of the more local desire and needs that are ported to a more centralized machine.

On its face, the construct of the United States Constitution is one of the most profound and defining documents written. While I understand fundamental adherence to any document can be too rigid, its foundation is solid and allows for expansion at the higher levels of Government like no other document on governmental treatise ever devised.

On the other hand, the document is designed for the higher functions of Government, while leaving the more personal aspects of governance to a lower form of government and even to the People themselves. To this, the Federalist way of government, is where I base my ideology upon.

I believe that we need a structured and ordered central Government with strict and absolutely defined roles. In as such, we have the separation of powers as created via the Constitution. Where the Constitution fails (or possibly the People themselves) is that they have derived their own interpretations from such rules to create a document that means nothing. Please keep in mind, that I am speaking of the original document and not the Bills of Rights.

With the central Government created and defined, it can leave the People and the individual States thereof, to define its roles within the confines of the larger constructs of the Government. For instance: if the Federal Government is not granted the ability to limit the States nor the People the ability to defend ones self (i.e., bear arms), it is left to the States to determine exactly what it should be allowed to do.

This has a caveat though. Each individual State is only created upon the agreement of its People who reside within its conceived borders. If the People of that State determine that their right to self protection is guaranteed, then it should be recognized and adhered to throughout the State and the States that also agree upon the Union of the central Government. If otherwise, the People determine that such is not applicable and they wish to limit the Peoples' rights to defend themselves, it is upon the acceptance of the People with no less than each State congressional cycle.

This is important as the "bills of rights" created by States are established with each new Congress; as to renew any contract that the People wish to renew or wish to let die.

This is a major derailment to our current system at the State level that also requires strict adherence that isn't seen at the Federal level. What does ATS think?

If our overall Federal Government were to strictly be held to a set of instructions, with each State having to reaffirm or otherwise adapt to new restrictions or non-restrictions, based upon Congressional cycles; would it alleviate any of our issues we experience?
edit on 3-2-2015 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

new topics

log in