Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The two political parties that dominate the United States government at all levels are both anti-American. They do not represent the American people nor seek what is best to preserve democracy. Democrats are Communists and Republicans are Nazis.
So, how do we change this. What can be done to make the United States a more democratic country, where the voices of all are not only heard but direct the country? Or are we at the point in time when government cannot be democratic?
Can you define what American is so I can identify what "anti-American" is?
Can you prove that Democrats are Communists?
I would say Republicans are facists before I went around calling them Nazis but they sort of share some common characteristics with Nazis. They hate gays, they hate blacks, they aren't big on women (they see them mainly as incubators...), etc.
Their job is not to "please" the people, it is to uphold the Constitution. This can not be done if we run around trying to "please" the people. The anger and conflict that exists now is because they are trying to "please" a certain portion of the people with disregard to their oaths of office. They have disregarded the very purpose to which our country stands and in doing so, they have disregarded the people themselves.
How can we blame them though? We elected those who would disregard it for our own selfish benefit. People will suffer from this in the long run. People will eventually wake up, but it will not be until they have tossed away every protection that once stood in their lust to have their will inflicted on those around them.
It's the Supreme Court that makes sure the constitution is upheld. The job of our senators and representatives is to review bills and proposed laws and vote them up or down.
IMO: When MORALS, VALUES and ETHICS have been thrown out and erased of any Politician or wanna-be Politician DOING THE RIGHT THING will not exist no matter who gets voted in.
It's the Supreme Court that makes sure the constitution is upheld. The job of our senators and representatives is to review bills and proposed laws and vote them up or down.
What is the oath of every official who takes office? What is first and foremost. Please look this up, then get back to me before you start subjectively proclaiming what is and what is not the job of our officials.
the recall option should be available. why would you object to it?
the next election can't come soon enough for most americans.
Recall options are available to some Americans. Who live in one of the eighteen states that currently do permit recall elections, or in Virginia that allows judicial oversight as a recall option.
What is the oath of every official who takes office? What is first and foremost. Please look this up, then get back to me before you start subjectively proclaiming what is and what is not the job of our officials.
The oath of office is not the same thing as the job description of what a senator and representative do which is what I was talking about. But I'll humor you with the oath of office (see below). I stand by my earlier post that it is job of the the Supreme Court to see that the our constitution is upheld and our representatives' job to review bills and proposed laws and vote them up or down. If anything was NOT done in accordance to the constitution this week (or any week) in D.C. it will eventually find its way to the Supreme Court for a ruling. If we're to believe, as you seem to do, that our representatives' only duties are what they swear to in the oath then no new laws would have been made since the constitution was written.
Quote:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
I think I have an old rant about this that seems appropriate.
"That's the problem with politics of today. The opposition is no longer some one with a difference of opinion and ideas...they are evil incarnate, hate the country, unpatriotic, mentally ill, and will destroy the earth. Once we as people give value of the winner take all, anything to win, and my way or the highway philosophies we all lose. Debates stop, coexistence stops, and we are left with two propaganda spewing hate groups that work against each other because the others viewpoint is the one of the Antichrist...not because proposals would gain the most value."
The oath of office is not the same thing as the job description of what a senator and representative do which is what I was talking about. But I'll humor you with the oath of office (see below). I stand by my earlier post that it is job of the the Supreme Court to see that the our constitution is upheld and our representatives' job to review bills and proposed laws and vote them up or down. If anything was NOT done in accordance to the constitution this week (or any week) in D.C. it will eventually find its way to the Supreme Court for a ruling. If we're to believe, as you seem to do, that our representatives' only duties are what they swear to in the oath then no new laws would have been made since the constitution was written.
Their oath defines their role. Their duties day to day is to serve the interest of the people with respect to that oath. The oath comes first and foremost and if it "pleases" the people to disregard it, then they are to disregard these demands.
They are the legislators. Their job is to argue for the people in the best interest of the people. The Constitution is above all, in the best interest of the people because it affirms the liberties of the people. They are defenders of this first and foremost. When an issue is in need, they legislate to meet those needs by first insuring it is within respect to the Constitution.
The courts exist to hold them to their responsibilities. That is, the courts are a part of the checks and balance process. No one branch is assigned the duty of such, ALL are assigned such duties and ALL of them are designed to keep the other beholden to their oath.
This is the fact of our system. You are mistaken in your assessment.
Their oath defines their role. Their duties day to day is to serve the interest of the people with respect to that oath. The oath comes first and foremost and if it "pleases" the people to disregard it, then they are to disregard these demands.
They are the legislators. Their job is to argue for the people in the best interest of the people. The Constitution is above all, in the best interest of the people because it affirms the liberties of the people. They are defenders of this first and foremost. When an issue is in need, they legislate to meet those needs by first insuring it is within respect to the Constitution.
The courts exist to hold them to their responsibilities. That is, the courts are a part of the checks and balance process. No one branch is assigned the duty of such, ALL are assigned such duties and ALL of them are designed to keep the other beholden to their oath.
This is the fact of our system. You are mistaken in your assessment.
I agree with you that the obligation to uphold the Constitution is the foremost obligation of people we elect to national office. But even our Founding Fathers recognized that there would be disagreements about how to defend and uphold the Constitution, and even in our understandings of the Constitution. Hence, it falls to the Judicial branch to resolve such disagreements.
Sometimes, it may "please the people" to disregard the Constitution. But more often, it's a matter of different people disagreeing about what the Constitution says in regard to an issue. And a legislator elected by a group of people would understandably reflect the opinion of his constituency on such an issue.
It's been my perspective as well that members of the House are asked to more closely reflect the needs and desires of their immediate constituencies, while members of the Senate are asked to consider the needs and desires of the people of their states, as well as to consider the welfare of the country. I think Senate members, with their longer tenure, are given a greater trust in fidelity to the Constitution in that way.
So, I don't think you are wrong in your assessment, but I also don't think Wayland Woman is wrong in her assessment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
