>(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]
[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.
There was no claim that political parties were mentioned in the Constitution.
It remains that political parties are not nor can they be unconstitutional.
As noted, it is their use of Government (ie. campaign laws) that is unconstitutional.
Again, I have not SEEN your Constitution. Your Constitution was not mentioned,
reviewed or otherwise.
Regard$,
--MJ
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -- and both commonly succeed, and are right... The United States has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds. -- H.L. Mencken
No comments:
Post a Comment