(1.)From its inception, the Constitution has included a US Senate.
Arguably, the Senate is the most powerful group of people in this
country. *** However, power which is not derived from the equitable
control of the people, runs counter to the SPIRIT of the Constitution!
*** From day one, there was a conflict of purpose in the Constitution
that not a SINGLE person who has taken an oath-of-office has been
willing to stand up and vow to get corrected! The ‘tradition’ of
allowing the Senate to continue, does NOT excuse the RESPONSIBILITY of
those taking Oaths of Office to work to get the Constitution amended,
or changed, to eliminate the UNDEMOCRATIC Senate!
The Senate -- when the Constitution was drafted -- represented the
Sovereign States (ie. those parties to the contract known as the
Constitution). Not certain what point you imagine to be making.
Of course the Articles were far superior in most ways -- contrary to
the instilled propaganda.
(2.)Our Constitution makes no mention of the ‘acceptability’ of
allowing political parties to be CLEARINGHOUSES in determining who our
elected officials can be. Political parities—with their unique sets
of biases and objectives—have undercut the genuine representation, and
the diversity that is so needed in our government officials. Though
political parties have their own ‘rules’, they are the rules of quasi
governmental bodies which run counter to the USA itself, and are thus
unconstitutional.
Parties, themselves, are not and cannot be 'unconstitutional' (which is a
silly assertion). That the Party Machine(s) have subsequently used the
Government to create advantages for themselves (ie. campaign laws) is
indeed unconstitutional.
(3.)Our Constitution details the procedures associated with the
Electoral College System for APPROXIMATING the democratic votes of the
People. In pioneer times, the Electoral College was the only workable
way to get the votes relayed to Washington. Before there was such
thing as even a telegraph, it was electors on horseback, or nothing.
But the SPIRIT of the Constitution demands that when technology—such
as we have, now—enables the accurate counting of the votes of the
People in a single day, that both the People AND democracy are best
served by letting the popular votes decide elections! Any President
who takes an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”,
must preserve, protect, and defend the OBJECTIVES of the Constitution,
NOT just the horse and buggy era… ’traditions’ which are no longer
serving the best interests of the People!
There is no such thing as an 'Electoral College'. The DESIGN was for
these various State Electors to NEVER come to a consensus, but instead
to serve as a 'search committee' of sorts. The House of Representatives
would then choose the president. This did not occur in practice (except
once).
Again, it is the Sovereign States who are party to the Constitution.
How is it that a mob is somehow more legitimate OR better equipped?
In the end, were the document ENFORCED as it is written ... this and
so much would be meaningless.
(4.)Our Constitution allows the House and Senate to make their own…
rules. But the SPIRIT of the Constitution DEMANDS that its most
fundamental objectives NOT be negated by whatever rules have been
made! To wit: (A.) Allowing seniority to determine who has power on
committees or in legislative processes. (B.) Allowing the majority
party to have powerful chairmanships of committees and sub-
committees. (C.) Allowing straw votes, or test votes, to identify
who will need to be pressured to… pass or to defeat a bill. (D.)
Allowing role call votes which let under-the-table deals be made while
the votes are being cast. (F.) Allowing filibustering to give
individuals more power than their one vote. (G.) Allowing caucuses
of any kind for gaining unfair influence over the outcome of votes.
(H.) Allowing disparate items to be ‘attached’ to bills, so that the
passage of the desired portions must also entail the passage of the
undesired portions. Etc., etc…
Heretofore, any person taking an oath to support the Constitution has
in fact been taking an oath the support the failed TRADITIONS which
violate the SPIRIT of the Constitution, itself!
Again, the Constitution provides LIMITED Powers, It is usurpations
and conditioning of the citizenry that has created the power-mongering
and the pull-peddling. This will not go away by merely installing some
other set of rules for the legislature.
(5.)The formal and informal “Washington Scene” allows members of
Congress to be influenced by lobbyists and by ‘persuasive’ fellow
members of Congress. Congressmen should only be communicating with
their own electorates regarding how to vote. And any congressman who
votes counter to the will of their electorate does so in violation of
democracy!
There is a reason that Article I, Section 4, Clause 2 was included.
Since those LIMITED Powers are necessarily few ... it is the vast
usurpation that provides basis to the pull-peddling.
What is the 'will of the electorate'? How does one determine such?
Why is this Mob more enlightened? More legitimate?
(6.)Because of the ubiquitous… media, congressman are playing to the
national scene, rather than to their individual electorates. The
mindset of congressional factions is that they must get media
approval. Such deference gives the media MORE influence on the
outcome of elections and votes than the voters themselves! ***
Political Parties, and the media, are two corrupt, conceptually-
verboten, influences which have come between the People and their
government. The SPIRIT of the Constitution requires that the People
have equitable control of government. The latter necessitates that
sweeping changes be made in order to be certain that the media, never
again, shall have more influence than the individual votes of their
numbers on election days! ***
Again, the Media kowtow to be part of the Power structure that usurpation
has provided.
My New Constitution—which is poised and polished—can FIX our broken
government! To start to learn how that will be accomplished, skim the
latter months of my post, below, for more premises of, and excerpts
from, my ‘New Constitution of the United States of America’!
Let's see it.
Regard$,
--MJ
Except in the sacred texts of democracy and in the incantations of orators, we hardly take the trouble to pretend that the rule of the majority is not at bottom a rule of force. What other virtue can there be in fifty-one percent except the brute fact that fifty-one is more than forty-nine? The rule of fifty-one per cent is a convenience, it is for certain matters a satisfactory political device, it is for others the lesser of two evils, and for others it is acceptable because we do not know any less troublesome method of obtaining a political decision. But it may easily become an absurd tyranny if we regard it worshipfully, as though it were more than a political device. We have lost all sense of its true meaning when we imagine that the opinion of fifty-one per cent is in some high fashion the true opinion of the whole hundred per cent, or indulge in the sophistry that the rule of a majority is based upon the ultimate equality of man. -- Walter Lippmann
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
