points.
A. The SPIRIT of the Constitution, and the general context of the
Constitution, all have government being under the control of the
People, not the other-way-around. Our nation was conceived to be a
Representative Republic—the closest practical approximation to a
democracy. Until recent years, having a working democracy wasn't even
a possibility. The ability to electronically tally the results of our
national elections within a few hours, now makes "popular votes"
closer to the democratic ideals of the Founding Fathers than Electoral
College APPROXIMATIONS of the Will of the People.
If the Founding Fathers had desired to have the USA controlled by an
elitist group of egotistical men, they could have specified that the
USA be an OLIGARCHY. Such would not require votes of the People on
anything. The US Senate was a make-or-break inclusion in the
Constitution so that small and scared-to-death states wouldn't suppose
the larger and more powerful states would take unfair advantage of
them. The mistake the Founding Fathers made was to include an entire,
unneeded, governmental body having powers not limited just to assuring
fair play, but in essence, having more power than any other group in
America… The proper process for assuring that the states deal fairly
with one another was through clauses placed in the body of the
Constitution, and the passing of subsequent national laws to ally
concerns about some states being oppressive of others.
Senators were originally appointed by the state legislatures. Small
states had much more influence in government, and on the Laws that
would get passed, than much larger states. Part of the errant
rational justifying the Senate was: 'Debate is a good part of the
legislation processes.' But in actuality, debate caused too many laws
to be passed with little more than 50% of the vote. I call all such
laws "gray area" laws. My New Constitution requires that a bill get
at least a 55% yea vote to be probationary, and 60% yea vote to have
the same "force of law" as we now give to laws passing by only
50.01%. The effect of that additional 10% vote margin will be to
eliminate laws not supported by the large majority of the voters.
The 17th Amendment allowed the citizens of each state to select their
two senators. That was a minor change, indeed, and left the too-
powerful, and on-the-SPIRIT, unconstitutional, US Senate in place.
The only representative way the US Senate could not be in violation of
the SPIRIT of the Constitution would be to allow the collective voters
in ALL states to approve the two senators selected from each of the
various states. That would give two senators from each geographic
state, but would allow their having political philosophies agreeable
to the majority of Americans.
A month or so ago, a guest on the Glenn Beck show likened the Senate
to a group of "lobbyists for the states." I said, "Hell no!"
Lobbyists do NOT get to vote and to have more power than any other
part of government! A possible solution to our Senate boondoggle is
to allow the Senate to lobby for state interests, but not be allowed
vote on any bill. Be it known: I am NOT proposing saving the US
Senate in any wise! Thinking men must surely realize that the Senate
is a totally unneeded governmental body! No oligarchy shall ever be
allowed to be the dominant political body in this country!
[B] MJ, I sense that you are "Monday-morning-quarterbacking" the
complex organization of our country. You have no concept of the
thousands and thousands of hours of thought and continual revision
that I've put into writing my New Constitution. Whether you think
there might be something better, is probably just an ego ploy of
yours. Most people "know" that they could make more logical decisions
than our "elected dictators", like Barack Obama. But few people have
a large enough ego to love standing in front to groups making speeches
every day. That's why I've stipulated that the media not be allowed
contact with Congress in Washington. And I've declared that no
congressman ever make gratuitous public speeches. The reason? I want
to be sure there is no EGO COMPONENT in those willing to run for
public office. Once possible office seekers realize they won't
constantly be in the public eye, we will start getting more salt-of-
the-earth types who have the knowledge and the character to make sure
our government is fair and optimal for the vast majority of Americans.
[C] Political parties aren't mentioned in the Constitution at all.
Those are quasi governmental bodies that usurp the power of the People
to determine who can represent them, and are thus unconstitutional.
Your hints of pedantry don't rise to the level of questioning the
functional perfection of my New Constitution.
[D] Ditto the pedantry part in [C].
[E] The original Constitution was weak. It evolved away from being
enforced, while Congress praised, but disregarded its precepts. I can
assure you that the POWER of my New Constitution will negate having
any public official ever again disregard its precepts!
[F] Ha! The corruption in Washington will go away ONE day after my
New Constitution is ratified! Those working for government will be
going to prison, or to the gallows, for assenting to, then
disregarding this requirement: "Fair play and democracy shall have
supremacy in the USA!" That one sentence will assure the survival of
this country!
[G] I've posted perhaps 40% of my New Constitution. To see that
much, follow the threads back in time. My individual Google replies—
amounting to like 200K words—give context explanations of much that is
in the document. Because I limited the length of the New Constitution
to 10 ledger-size sheets, the functional relationships of the various
parts requires reading all of the various parts. There are, perhaps,
four to five hundred specific corrections to government, and to our
controllable capitalist system. The later must be fair to their
employees and to their customers, and considerate and protective of
our environment. No one will need to fear not getting a fair
opportunity. But socialists, and their ilk, won't be holding any sway
in this country. Bet on it! — John A. Armistead —
Patriot
>
On Feb 8, 8:58 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> (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.
[A]
> Of course the Articles were far superior in most ways -- contrary to
> the instilled propaganda.
[B]
>(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.
[C]
>(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).
[D]
> 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.
[E]
>(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.
[F]
>(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.
[G]
> 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment