In this previous post, I wrote about my feelings on political parties, and how our founders did not advocate political parties when they were creating our system of government. – For this post, I have decided to use a fictitious baseball game as an analogy: As with any game, we will need a set of rules: So, for our rule book, let’s use The United States Constitution, and all subsequent laws… For this baseball game, we will need two teams; so let’s just say, we have Team Democrat and Team Republican… Now, all baseball games have an umpire behind home plate, whose function it is to be an objective observer, and to call balls and strikes, based on the rules of the game. For a moment, let’s think of each of our elected officials as a home plate umpire: If each elected official was hired to simply, and objectively, called balls and strikes, based on our set of rules, would we be much better off as a nation? Conversely, consider if the home plate umpire was in the tank for either Team Democrat or Team Republican; how would that game work out? –
Every four to eight years, we end up with a President that is in favor of either Team Democrat or Team Republican, when in fact, we need them to be an objective leader that represents both teams, while utilizing the same set of rules, for both teams. The United States Constitution addresses the powers of The Congress, and the powers of The President, however, there is nothing in The Constitution that explains how Republican elected officials are to objectively represent a Democrat constituency of voters, and vice-versa for Democrat elected officials; therefore, these same principles should apply to all elected officials, including Senators and Representatives; and all with strict term limits, as with the President.
With Supreme Court Justices, there is an expectation for them to objectively interpret the law; and law-enforcement is expected to objectively enforce the law; therefore, wouldn’t it only make sense that the law-makers begin to objectively create laws? And laws that benefit the entire team, instead of one team or the other? If we had elected officials, in Congress, acting as objective legislators, and utilizing The Constitution as their foundation for creating laws, then I would believe, the need for political parties would diminish greatly. And, after all, aren’t we suppose to be The “United” States of America?
Mark
Twitter
Facebook
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009 (url)
Well said. This latest move by the Democrats meeting behind closed doors, once again just infuriates me. I think they should pass a law that says, there must be input into a bill from both parties. With just a few hand picked Democrats making the health care bill (without the expertise of the professionals in the health care and insurance industries) that leaves out "We the People".
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009 (url)
Hi Jackie,
TY! Yes, this health care fiasco is a perfect example of why the above needs to start applying to law-makers…
Consider what I said in the post:
Supreme Court Justices are expected to interpret laws objectively; law enforcement is expected to enforce the laws objectively; so then why aren't law-makers creating laws objectively?
If you follow this logic, it is not hard to see why our founders were opposed to political parties! Political parties, intrinsically, represent one group of people, or the other. They are completely self-serving, disenfranchising, and should be considered unconstitutional! Also, lobbying groups that offer financial gain or special favors for legislation, should be punishable with jail sentences.
As I said, in the above, we are suppose to be one team (Team USA) with one rule book (The United States Constitution); so when are our law-makers going to treat our country as one? I have said this many times, but it is worth repeating: If our law-makers were all forced to create laws, based strictly on The Constitution, with over site to make sure that is enforced, then the need for political parties would likely go away; as they would all then be following the same handbook. If they followed The Constitution, they would also likely have to get out of the business of trying to create services that the private sector is suppose to be offering, and get back to "managing" our country, as directed by The Constitution; which is what our tax-dollars are supposed to be paying them to do!
Friday, October 9th, 2009 (url)
All three branches of government are out of whack from what the Constitution set up.
The Executive branch should only include the President and his cabinet, not 30 some advisers. Even if the czars aren't making policy, they have to be paid a salary, expenses of an office and staff.
Congress was only suppose to meet at least once a year, not all year. I could be wrong, but I believe they all had regular jobs, like farmers, lawyers etc. They came and met, did their business, then went back to their jobs.
The Judicial Branch is making law, as well, instead of just interpreting the law.
Now-a-days, big money lobbyists, and special interest groups, own Washington; and just to run for President, is a billion $ business.
Friday, October 9th, 2009 (url)
Indeed,
There are MANY problems with our political system, in it’s current state; and most of the problems you described, minus 30 some czars, are certainly not new problems. Sadly, most of the population only woke up recently to these problems. It would be like waking up to find your house has been overcome by insects and rodents. Our system seriously needs to be fumigated!
In fact, as much as I admire Thomas Jefferson, he created the political party: Democrat-Republican Party.
I think the root of the problem still lies with our age old question of federalism verses anti-federalism. The Bill of Rights were included in The Constitution so that the rights of the states, and of the people of the states could be preserved; and thankfully, Thomas Jefferson, was clearly a real advocate of those rights.
So, while I completely understand why Jefferson felt the need to branch off into a separate political party, I don’t believe it has helped our nation over the long run. Political parties and special interests seem to go hand and hand. If there were no political parties, we’d still have the same debates, in Congress; however, they would be forced to hash out their differences, instead of the subsequent additions of the filibuster, reconciliation, and other debate-ending tactics, that have also tainted our system of government.
–
These were Thomas Jefferson’s very words…
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
–
And this is why our founders chose to create a Republic, as opposed to a true democracy. However, while the people (in theory) are under a representative democracy, it seems as though Congress operates under a mob rules, absolute democracy, that developed with the inception of political parties; while lobbying and special interests, since the 1900s, have been influencing both parties.
Political parties are not much different then labor unions… labor unions often seem more interested in their personal gain, as opposed to the overall health of the company that is actually paying their salaries. And what happens to the union when there is no one left to pay their salaries?
Our system is so out of control!
Saturday, October 10th, 2009 (url)
To advance what I was saying…
If you think of political parties as a true democracy, in which a mob rules… then either The Republicans or Democrats, generally, will pass legislation based on party-line votes.
If I can assume, most people, generally see their vision of the country through their own eyes, and seldom give regards to people with opposing points of view, then as long as your party has the power, then for the most part, you will likely get what you want. However, when the opposing party takes over the power, then you generally feel a great sense of disenfranchisement.
Also, I think political parties are responsible for the whirl-wind of changes that our country goes through with every election cycle. Again, that change may work for you, and other times, it can effect your life profoundly for the worse.
In my opinion, political parties are not helping the people, but rather, have expanded the powers of Congress tremendously. And to have no political parties, would likely restore some of the continuity needed in this country, as opposed to the radical changes we seem to go through, at least every four to eight years.
Saturday, October 10th, 2009 (url)
Another thing I thought of from your last comment about people feeling disenfranchised when the opposite party is in office. . . . I have a friend in Florida who is agnostic and lives with an atheist. She was sharing with me a couple of months ago about how disenfranchised she felt when Bush was in office (and she used that exact word). She said she was always afraid to mention anything bad about Bush or mention anything about not being a Christian for fear of losing some of her clients.
That got me to see and realize that Christianity did seem to become such a big issue during his administration. Before Bush, I don't remember knowing the religion of any previous President or even if they were Christians.
I want the President to be a Christian, but I'm not sure I feel that it needs to be so public, in that you are supposed to be a President to all the citizens of the United States. I can see how non-Christians could feel real disenfranchised in that environment. Because this President seems so anti-Christian, and I do feel disenfranchised.
Sunday, October 11th, 2009 (url)
I can totally see how your friend would feel that way during The Bush years; however, I would not necessarily blame that on George Bush, but rather on the general ignorance of some people. It is irrefutable that our nation was built on Judea-Christian beliefs; however, our founders were very tolerant of other denominations as well. And conversely, I can see how Christians are feeling as though the secular-progressives are going to great lengths to try to completely get rid of Christianity and God from our country. Interestingly, there is nothing in The Constitution that says to separate church from state. The (1st Amendment) Constitution says this…
–
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”
–
I too am a Christian; well a Messianic-Jew to be exact; but I totally agree: I think, during the past few presidential campaigns, too much emphasis has been put into the discussion of faith, and probably the discussion of abortion as well. I am not minimizing the “importance” of either one, however, the issue of abortion is something that can be lobbied for, or against, in other forums besides a presidential campaign. I don’t believe anyone really minds if a president, or presidential candidate espouses their Christian, or core beliefs; I just think that many don’t want that to be the emphasis of their campaign or presidency.
Quite frankly, I don’t think there should be any problem with religious symbols, anywhere, in the country; including government buildings. We need to be a nation of tolerance, and respect. When one side tries to silence the other side, it only leads to more friction and disenfranchisement, down the road. No matter what faith a president is, it is simply impossible (constitutionally) for our government to make any religion the national religion. To that degree, Barack Obama (lawfully speaking) was right to say we are not a Christian nation; although, it would have been nice to hear him say, we were “very much” founded on the belief in God and many of our laws were derived from biblical principals.
I think it is great when a president can pray on occasion with the nation, if he is a person of faith; but for the most part, faith is probably best to keep “mostly” private. And during a presidential campaign, it is probably best if the candidate sticks to the things that are important to “all” of the people: such as the economy, national security, taxes, the size of government etc.
Someone should never feel disenfranchised because of a particular president’s faith… As I was saying, that was just the general ignorance of a constituency of people. And you are right, now we have a president that seems to go to lengths to minimize our Christian heritage. That is a bit depressing to me, but sadly, it seems to fit in with this president’s whole theme of apologizing for traditional American values.
If people would stick to the national issues that are important to “all” Americans, then the president’s faith should not even be a real issue. No matter what faith the president is, if our economy tanks, we are ALL in big, big trouble!
Sunday, October 11th, 2009 (url)
“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State” (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).
This is where those declaring separation of church and state get it from. It is a quote by Thomas Jefferson. I don’t believe he meant what they have taken it to mean, but that it where it originated.
I agree with everything you said. That was a great comment.
Sunday, October 11th, 2009 (url)
Thank you Jackie!
I am so glad you posted those words… I thought those words derived from Thomas Jefferson, but I could not recall where they were from. If Jefferson were alive today, I’m not sure he would like how his words have been interpreted and applied.
I just went and read the entire Danbury Baptists Letter, and now believe, Thomas Jefferson was saying, according to The First Amendment, government can not infringe on the free exercise of one’s religion, nor can they establish a national religion. That wall of separation he was referring to, was to protect these rights from government intrusion. I saw nothing in there that says, we need to eliminate religion, faith, and all religious symbols from society. Clearly, Jefferson’s words were used with nefarious intents, by these secular progressives.
In fact, on the right side of this page, you can read The Senate’s “own interpretation” of those very words, from the 1st Amendment…