I have noticed a number of grass roots organizations all with the same end goal in mind. To restore the Constitution to its original intent and place in society as a guide as to who can do what, when and how. It sets up this country as a Republic not a Democracy as some think and want to call it.
It is was a new form of government for its time and established a nation ruled by law and the supreme law of the land was the Constitution, thinking men spent years perfecting. A great number of people think it is more than “just a piece of paper” or is “fundamentally flawed” as our immediate past and present Presidents have said.
After the extreme measures and blatantly unconstitutional acts of Bush continuing with Obama people have risen up and said “Give us Back our Constitution” we have had it with politics as is and massive government.
There is the True Republic, Restore our Republic, Campaign for Liberty (C4L) and a bunch of others. All of them should get together in one big convention and take all the time they need to talk it all over, straighten out their differences, if any, and come up with a platform. Then they should target taking over a veto proof majority in both houses of Congress in 2010. If they are successful they could straighten out the mess our government has created.
A lot of politicians will not like it because their relatives and friends would soon be out of work when the new congress starts eliminating every Bureaucracy not authorized by the Constitution.
The president will not like it because Congress can limit the use of Signing Statements so they can no longer change legislation as has been done. They would be limited only to a statement of opinion. Executive orders could be limited so they do not have the force of law and only apply to a limited extent.
No President or Secretary of State could go overseas and promise foreign aid without the express consent of Congress. State visits and Congressional “Junkets” could be limited. The income tax could be revisited and a Supreme Court ruling could be sought to define “Income” in the context of the Constitution and the language of the time when it was passed The Supreme Court could pass on the Constitutionality of that law and also if it was legally ratified, something that has been contested low these many years.
Free Trade Agreements could be nullified. The program to pay companies to move out of country could be eliminated. Most of the programs of the government could be eliminated and turned back to the states to do with as they wish.
Term limits for All political offices could be imposed and the lucrative retirement could be eliminated because they all are supposed to have a civilian occupation and a benefit plan from their occupation. The same with hospitalization.
Our military could be ordered home from all military bases except Counsels where our Ambassador lives. The Presidential powers accorded by the Constitution as Commander In Chief could easily be limited to only those uses of the military authorized by the Constitution.
The central government could be cut down to size and limited. That is my idea of a real Revolution with limited or no violence.
Of course if I had my way no individual who ever took Political Science as a major in college could run for a political office.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 125
And we have a number of Americans who would prefer the U.S. to be a Socialist/ Communist state. All of this is very dangerous. Wake up folks and keep your eyes and ears open to what is going on around you. Democracy itself seems to be in danger.
Just funny, that's all. Like milk that's been out too long.
That's a good thing for sure. Just because someone has "issues" doesn't mean I should have to deal with them or provide them a solution.
"The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.
What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Were an answer to this question to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitution of different States, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holland, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic. The same title has been bestowed on Venice, where absolute power over the great body of the people is exercised, in the most absolute manner, by a small body of hereditary nobles. Poland, which is a mixture of aristocracy and of monarchy in their worst forms, has been dignified with the same appellation. The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of republics. These examples, which are nearly as dissimilar to each other as to a genuine republic, show the extreme inaccuracy with which the term has been used in political disquisitions.
If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character. .."
(Madison)
As for any near term congress repealing the mess created this century to any real extent, it's a dream.
Where are the "Republican" alternatives to the Obama administration's leftist plane. Oh sure, individual Congressmen and Senators have proposed "plans" that are not going anywhere and we don't know about because the party is not united behind them.
I'm an independent conservative who is not placing any hope in the Republicans in 2010.
I AGREE!
My father did have a degree in political science among other's, he'd probably agree however. He died in Jan at age 90.
We could eliminate the V.A. along with all those base closures, and it could become a REAL, "VOLUNTEER", as in, NO PAY) Army, like in the old days, too! Plus! Eliminate all the support for our militaries families, like it was way back when the Constitution was written.
We could also go back to the days where the Rich guy, who wanted to buy out regular peoples businesses, and or farms, but was unable to buy cause so many did NOT want to sell, so the rich guy could hire a bunch of thugs to go run them all off, and burn them all out. Think, "RANGE WARS"!
Look it up.
There is no magic in a new political party. If it is made up of the same kind of people who have lied to us in both major political parties, a new party accomplishes nothing. If it is supported by the same feckless people who are unwilling to "throw the bastards out of office" as there are in in both major political parties, a new party accomplishes nothing.
What could make a difference?
I think a party that required its local, state, and national officials to sign a written pledge of fidelity to the Constitution that would be put online for all to see would be a start. I also think a party that drew up a written platform based on constitutional principles that was binding on all candidates would get people's attention. Finally, I think a party that published a legislative agenda based on these principles, and all candidates signed a written pledge to implement this agenda would really get the attention of "We the people".
Would there be a lot of wrangling and infighting to get this done? Sure, just read about the Constitutional conventions. But, the willingness to compromise and put country ahead of self would earn the trust and attention of the people, just as it did when our country was formed.
If the country goes as I think it will under the Obama administration, the majority of people will be eager for "real change" and will be open to a government they can trust. A Constitutional party could give it to them in writing.
And then every ONE of 'em would tell you the "Constitution" to which they pledged fidelity was in some significant way different from what everyone else would tell you.
WHY do you people think it's somehow a simple matter to get any three people in a room to agree to what "The Constitution" is or means? If THAT were so, we could do away with SCOTUS, but even when the blasted document was written, its authors know it was WAY too complex for that sort of common understanding or agreement. That's why they CREATED SCOTUS. Or hadn'[t you noticed that interpreting a document that becomes more that has become more and more a philosophical guide and less and less the "law of the land" is their ONLY?ong> function? And that it takes up their entire lives.
For politicians, a set of written principles and a legislative agenda link the Constitution to modern times. More important, posted on the Internet, they provide a baseline against which their actions can be measured throughout their terms.
Somehow, I don't think Presidents Bush and Obama would have a second term under such an arrangement.
I don't care where they're posted, somebody's gotta write 'em - and then we have to agree to them. I'm beginning to see what amounts to a Constitutional amendment process here, and this is just too complex for that. So-o-o-o-o-o... Constitutional Convention, anybody? No? Me either.
As far as opposing views of the Constitution . . . yes that has always been with us. But the disagreement hasn't changed all that much over the years. You have Jefferson's who want to adhere to it and you have Hamilton's that want to ignore it.
Col., I have NO idea what YOU mean by returning us to the Constitution, but having fenced with you over bits and pieces of political philosophy, I must admit that the thought scares me. That document was written two hundred and thirty some years ago, to help the elected representatives of the people govern an agrarian society, and who had no ability to communicate in any effective way with those people. Only the landed gentry and the merchant class could vote, and only the male members. With only thirteen states, it STILL required months to complete and certify a national election. The world was still fifty years from the first glimmerings of the industrial revolution, and nearly nearly a hundred years from feeling the first real effects of it.
We're a very different society, living in a very different world, and going 'back' to the Constitution, a document written for powerful men, by powerful men, in a society in which they controlled the daily lives of everyone else, some to the point of slavery, is NOT where I think I want to be.
And, yes Col., in that sense, the Constitution of the United States of America IS "fundamentally flawed."
I've never seen anything that leads me to believe that the writers of the constitution/founding fathers were these political/social geniuses that pulled the perfect governmental system out of wherever... but more likely that they hacked together something that sounded better and more fair than what had been used where they came from, and used basic reasoning to develop protections against it being corrupted.... but not all perfect. cobbled together half assedly.
Look it up.
The ideas of the Founders are unique, and have produced an extraordinary chapter in human history. No nation has enjoyed more human rights and prosperity than the United States of America. No nation has given more to the less fortunate peoples of the world in terms of time, treasure and the ultimate sacrifice of our lives.
The ideas of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have been tested under extreme conditions and have prevailed. But now, because our people have become soft and have turned away from God because of the soft life, the naysayers have emerged in the nation's politics.
They have new and "better" answers they say, when both the spokesmen and their ideas are untested in the unforgiving world of real life. They say trust in government instead of God, when the government can't manage its present programs. They say security is better than freedom because a soft people worry about the responsibility of managing their own lives.
They say they offer "hope and change", when all they have to offer is the ideas that have failed miserably in other countries.
No thanks Chuck. I'll take the time-tested ideas of the Constitution over your "hope and change" any day, and in the long run, the country and its people will be the better for it.
They wanted moral citizens who are essential to any democratic republic, and a recognition that our rights come from the Creator, and can't be taken away by the government. They were right in 1776, and they are right now.
What I don't believe in is keeping morality and government separate. Unfortunately, that is what we have now in Washington.
On the subject of Morality, I think it would be better to pay attention to what they do to or for the Nation rather than what is done in the bedroom.
Both are matter of morality, not necessarily matters of religion (Unless you believe in "Thou shalt not kill").
George, my point is that these are matters of morality. Those who have no moral principles are likely to do anything to get what they want.
Moral principles in Wash DC, in our Congress or any part of our government? Not much.
I enjoyed the discussion.
Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Exactly what does that mean?
"I think a party that required its local, state, and national officials to sign a written pledge of fidelity to the Constitution that would be put online for all to see would be a start. I also think a party that drew up a written platform based on constitutional principles that was binding on all candidates would get people's attention. Finally, I think a party that published a legislative agenda based on these principles, and all candidates signed a written pledge to implement this agenda would really get the attention of "We the people".
Would there be a lot of wrangling and infighting to get this done? Sure, just read about the Constitutional conventions. But, the willingness to compromise and put country ahead of self would earn the trust and attention of the people, just as it did when our country was formed."
Randy you expressed my idea perfectly and put in some things that would be necessary. One thing though the new party would have to have a new and unique name. It would not want any connection in the mind to an existing political organization.
As far as Chuck goes, I expected a died in the wool Far Left Democrat Obamaite to disageee. The whole principal of Left wingers is contrary to the Constitution.
they don't have to be in bed together, they already have the same motives and interests. democrats and republicans are the two sides of one coin. they ultimately are not different. at least one side pretends to be interested in what the little guy thinks....
Theoretically, many of your ideas are good, but they aren't practical because timing is absolutely everything in any situation, and we are past the point of no return. Powerful to the extent of a bulldozer is where we are now, and what we need at this time, I believe. It can't happen peaceably anymore. We have too many factions within the grassroots of society, each with its own cause, and its own set of values, morals, and ethics. The melting pot is gone.
Look at what has been going on in this country, culminating in a publicly announced conference taking place this very day. This kind of thing has been a long time coming, and we have allowed it to happen. The horses aren't leaving the paddock, Mrs. Higgins; they're already long gone.
Eliminating weapons is the first step in taking over a nation when the adversary is ready to act. That time is now.
That is what was sold Sue, not what was delivered. It's a nice sales pitch. You can see what was delivered and have mentioned some of it.
The Obama administrations isn't very good at either one. Neither was the Bush administration.
The rest of us could care less.
A bulldozer can be used to build too Randy. If I want to build a berm to use as a back stop on a shooting range a bulldozer is the perfect tool.
Seriously, we have been sold a lot of versions of, "THE AMERICAN DREAM". That term, in itself was one sold to us. Who coined that term anyway?
Now I'm wondering what and who's political campaign these slogans came from. Gonna have to go look these up.
But, the point6 I'm making is, these slogans we all think mean so much were also sold to us, probably a good while after the Constitution was written. So, maybe it's not a good idea to use them either, in this new government.
Who coined the term, "MELTING POT", also, and when?
This is an interesting discussion but I think there are some serious misconceptions afloat in our nation that need to be dealt with before much can be accomplished.
First and foremost is the belief that the average citizen knows what is in the constitution.
I read somewhere recently that a poll shows that only one in 10,000 Americans have ever read the constitution and would not know what it was if it were placed in their hands.
If I remember correctly, the same poll revealed that only 2 out of every 500 elected officials in our nation have read it either.
This says to me that our number one problem in the country is ignorance.
Secondly, most people think that the political parties have some degree of control over the membership. This is totally false. There are no teeth in any of the political party rules or guidelines.
So First, we need to somehow begin to find a way to get our people to read and understand the constitution and Secondly, we would need to establish a party that tested its candidates in some real way for qualification and then require an adherence to the platform in such a way that those elected would have to answer for not supporting the party that elected them.
If that could be accomplished, I would want to be a part of that party.
As far as education goes, I think its kind of a chicken and egg thing. Do you change the politics first, and let them lead the ignorant while you reform education? Or, do you try to change education while the politics are in the hands of corrupt officials beholden to the NEA?
Personally, I think it depends on timing. If the country is in trouble and looking for leadership (as it was at the end of the Bush administration), the ignorant will follow anyone who seems to have the answers to their troubles. That is why I think the Obama administration will create such an opportunity for conservatives when it leaves the country in a mess.
We just have to be ready to seize the opportunity, because the Republicans sure won't since they have no plans and no leadership.
I took typeing and Greg shorthand. both now gone. we have "keyboarding" now.
Another good suggestion Cliffordd. However I think they should answer for not supporting the things they said they would try to acomplish if elected.
It is one thing to be willing, but quite another to be able. Such a party needs be able to attract volunteers, as well as experienced politicians like Sen. Jim De Mint and Sen. Joe Lieberman who have clearly had it with the present parties and have the knowledge to lead a new party.
I hope the Tea Party movement will lead to such an effort. It provides a focal point for angry people to pledge their time and treasure to such an effort.
PS This was a great post and a great discussion. Thanks for all of the effort you put into it.
GOD is still the supreme leader and turning our back on our founders who sought his guidance was our first mistake!
I agree with your ideas. I wish I had the political clout or youth and vigor to get it going. We need a leader who is pure American.
I even agree with the God idea as long as it is God, not today's brand of Christianity.
Thought that if we were to reduce Government, the one level of Government that we could not do away with was the local level.
The Constitution is "The way we do things" which can be written down -or not.
About the time I was fired, the Canadian Government hired an economist to define efficiency in the Government - and her paid- for conclusion was that it is "The way we do things".
With a mind to fix things, I have started onlinenap.ning.com and will spend the rest of the day inviting my community luminaries to join OttawaCanada.ning.com or OttawaCanada.spruz.com Really do not know what I am doing, but it feels right.