Abolish both parties and start afresh

[koshergrl]

Well since we can't abolish both parties what we need to do is eliminate all the extraneous, unconstitutional AGENCIES that are being used to funnel money to the crooks.

Trump understands which is why all the agencies are shaking in their size 10s.

https://www.peer.org/assets/clips/F...gement Plans to Cut 1,000 Jobs in FY 2018.pdf

Interior chief wants to shed 4,000 employees in department shake-up

Interior plans to move thousands of workers in the biggest reorganization in its history

Trump budget seeks 23 percent cut at EPA, eliminating dozens of programs

Senate committee questions proposed USFS 2019 budget cuts | THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

What Trump cut in his agency budgets

Trump's Education Budget Revealed

We're moving in the right direction.

 

[Pogo]

Why Can't This be done

Holy shit, I wish it could. And the process could include debates first, with two or three more parties, so that people could have a real choice.

All the zealots could obediently clump back together into their little tribes, but the rest of us might be able to dilute the power they have now, if people could be offered real alternatives.

Pipe dream. A nice pipe dream, but a pipe dream nonetheless.
.

That debate process though was commandeered away from the nonpartisan League of Women Voters to a construction called the Commission on Presidential Debates, a subsidiary of The Duopoly, which colludes on those debates to negotiate on gotcha questions as well as what's in the Duopoly's mutual interest, any threat of competition from outside the Duopoly. That hostile takeover was just a couple of decades ago, within recent memory.

It's one more way The Duopoly acts as what a single political party eventually always devolves to --- a catalyst for its own self-perpetuation and nothing more.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If it were up to me a political party should be chartered, like a corporation, for a finite and nonrenewable period of twenty years. Once that term is up, you're history. Whether you've accomplished your goals or not.

After about that much time any ideology that purportedly birthed the party goes by the wayside and its entire purpose becomes self-perpetuation. Acquiring power for its own sake.

Yeah, there's just one little flaw in that plan. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. And I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Basically, you have no legal right to "abolish" any private group which people wish to voluntarily form up into.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble in no way requires a political party.
Checkmate.

No one said it "required a political party". Political parties are, themselves, peaceable assemblies of people.

Perhaps before you declared "checkmate", you should have started playing chess.

 

[Pogo]

If it were up to me a political party should be chartered, like a corporation, for a finite and nonrenewable period of twenty years. Once that term is up, you're history. Whether you've accomplished your goals or not.

After about that much time any ideology that purportedly birthed the party goes by the wayside and its entire purpose becomes self-perpetuation. Acquiring power for its own sake.

Yeah, there's just one little flaw in that plan. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. And I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Basically, you have no legal right to "abolish" any private group which people wish to voluntarily form up into.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble in no way requires a political party.
Checkmate.

No one said it "required a political party". Political parties are, themselves, peaceable assemblies of people.

Perhaps before you declared "checkmate", you should have started playing chess.

Ah but peaceable assemblies of people are not necessarily political parties.

The question was how the Constitution prohibits banning political parties --- not how the Constitution protects the right to assemble. That's two different things.

Shah mat.

 

[opinionator]

Who says you have to vote for either party? Abolish them in your mind first.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why Can't This be done

The white Republicans will still be white and still hate minorities.

here is an example of a leftist shill.....

What about those that tan?

can i get a hit off that moon?....

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Why Can't This be done

Because it would be unconstitutional.

The Founding Fodder Gave Us Oats, Not Votes

The Constitution is what created this bossy and bickering oligarchy.

The Constitution was intended to limit the power and scope of the Federal government a Liberal view of the Constitution is what gave us today's government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If it were up to me a political party should be chartered, like a corporation, for a finite and nonrenewable period of twenty years. Once that term is up, you're history. Whether you've accomplished your goals or not.

After about that much time any ideology that purportedly birthed the party goes by the wayside and its entire purpose becomes self-perpetuation. Acquiring power for its own sake.

Yeah, there's just one little flaw in that plan. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. And I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Basically, you have no legal right to "abolish" any private group which people wish to voluntarily form up into.

Correct.

Political organizations, political advocacy, and political association are all entitled to Constitutional protections:

‘Core political speech consists of conduct and words that are intended to directly rally public support for a particular issue, position, or candidate. In one prominent case, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that core political speech involves any “interactive communication concerning political change.” Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 108 S. Ct. 1886, 100 L. Ed. 2d 425 (1988). Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates, the Supreme Court concluded, are forms of political expression integral to the system of government established by the federal Constitution. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1976). Thus, circulating handbooks and petitions, posting signs and placards, and making speeches and orations are all forms of core political speech, so long as they in some way address social issues, political positions, political parties, political candidates, government officials, or governmental activities.

The First Amendment elevates core political speech above all other forms of individual expression by prohibiting laws that regulate it unless the laws are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Known as “strict scrutiny” analysis, the application of this analysis by a court usually sounds the death knell for the law that is being challenged.’

Protection of Core Political Speech – Civil Rights

And:

‘Freedom of association as a concept [that] grew out of a series of cases in the 1950's and 1960's in which certain States were attempting to curb the activities of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In the first case, the Court unanimously set aside a contempt citation imposed after the organization refused to comply with a court order to produce a list of its members within the State. ''Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly.'' 198 ''[T]hese indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association,'' 199 may be abridged by governmental action either directly or indirectly, wrote Justice Harlan, and the State had failed to demonstrate a need for the lists which would outweigh the harm to associational rights which disclosure would produce.

Applying the concept in subsequent cases, the Court again held in Bates v. City of Little Rock, 200 that the disclosure of membership lists, because of the harm to be caused to ''the right of association,'' could only be compelled upon a showing of a subordinating interest; ruled in Shelton v. Tucker, 201 that while a State had a broad interest to inquire into the fitness of its school teachers, that interest did not justify a regulation requiring all teachers to list all organizations to which they had belonged within the previous five years; again struck down an effort to compel membership lists from the NAACP; 202 and overturned a state court order barring the NAACP from doing any business within the State because of alleged improprieties. 203 Certain of the activities condemned in the latter case, the Court said, were protected by the First Amendment and, while other actions might not have been, the State could not so infringe on the ''right of association'' by ousting the organization altogether. 204’

Annotation 12 - First Amendment - FindLaw

Consequently, neither the Federal government nor any state government may enact a measure making it illegal to belong the either the Democratic Party or Republican Party, or otherwise seek to ‘abolish’ the Democratic Party or Republican Party.

Any such measure would be invalidated by the courts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why Can't This be done

Holy shit, I wish it could. And the process could include debates first, with two or three more parties, so that people could have a real choice.

All the zealots could obediently clump back together into their little tribes, but the rest of us might be able to dilute the power they have now, if people could be offered real alternatives.

Pipe dream. A nice pipe dream, but a pipe dream nonetheless.
.

An un-Constitutional pipe dream, thankfully.

 

[BluesLegend]

If we are going to start fresh then most liberals will be living in a gulag.

 

[Pogo]

Why Can't This be done

Because it would be unconstitutional.

The Founding Fodder Gave Us Oats, Not Votes

The Constitution is what created this bossy and bickering oligarchy.

The Constitution was intended to limit the power and scope of the Federal government a Liberal view of the Constitution is what gave us today's government.

A Liberal view of the Constitution is what wrote it.

 

[fncceo]

Abolish the concept of parties.

How?

Make contributions to collective political entities illegal. Contributions to individual candidates only.

Defund party politics.

So now you're going to tell people what they can and can't freely give their own, privately-owned money to?

Donations to political parties is already highly regulated. I didn’t invent that particular wheel.

 

[Lakhota]

Abolish both parties and start afresh

How would that help? The shit flows up from the bottom.

 

[Pogo]

If it were up to me a political party should be chartered, like a corporation, for a finite and nonrenewable period of twenty years. Once that term is up, you're history. Whether you've accomplished your goals or not.

After about that much time any ideology that purportedly birthed the party goes by the wayside and its entire purpose becomes self-perpetuation. Acquiring power for its own sake.

Yeah, there's just one little flaw in that plan. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. And I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Basically, you have no legal right to "abolish" any private group which people wish to voluntarily form up into.

Correct.

Political organizations, political advocacy, and political association are all entitled to Constitutional protections:

‘Core political speech consists of conduct and words that are intended to directly rally public support for a particular issue, position, or candidate. In one prominent case, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that core political speech involves any “interactive communication concerning political change.” Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 108 S. Ct. 1886, 100 L. Ed. 2d 425 (1988). Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates, the Supreme Court concluded, are forms of political expression integral to the system of government established by the federal Constitution. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1976). Thus, circulating handbooks and petitions, posting signs and placards, and making speeches and orations are all forms of core political speech, so long as they in some way address social issues, political positions, political parties, political candidates, government officials, or governmental activities.

The First Amendment elevates core political speech above all other forms of individual expression by prohibiting laws that regulate it unless the laws are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Known as “strict scrutiny” analysis, the application of this analysis by a court usually sounds the death knell for the law that is being challenged.’

Protection of Core Political Speech – Civil Rights

And:

‘Freedom of association as a concept [that] grew out of a series of cases in the 1950's and 1960's in which certain States were attempting to curb the activities of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In the first case, the Court unanimously set aside a contempt citation imposed after the organization refused to comply with a court order to produce a list of its members within the State. ''Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly.'' 198 ''[T]hese indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association,'' 199 may be abridged by governmental action either directly or indirectly, wrote Justice Harlan, and the State had failed to demonstrate a need for the lists which would outweigh the harm to associational rights which disclosure would produce.

Applying the concept in subsequent cases, the Court again held in Bates v. City of Little Rock, 200 that the disclosure of membership lists, because of the harm to be caused to ''the right of association,'' could only be compelled upon a showing of a subordinating interest; ruled in Shelton v. Tucker, 201 that while a State had a broad interest to inquire into the fitness of its school teachers, that interest did not justify a regulation requiring all teachers to list all organizations to which they had belonged within the previous five years; again struck down an effort to compel membership lists from the NAACP; 202 and overturned a state court order barring the NAACP from doing any business within the State because of alleged improprieties. 203 Certain of the activities condemned in the latter case, the Court said, were protected by the First Amendment and, while other actions might not have been, the State could not so infringe on the ''right of association'' by ousting the organization altogether. 204’

Annotation 12 - First Amendment - FindLaw

Consequently, neither the Federal government nor any state government may enact a measure making it illegal to belong the either the Democratic Party or Republican Party, or otherwise seek to ‘abolish’ the Democratic Party or Republican Party.

Any such measure would be invalidated by the courts.

All of this above seems to hinge on the idea that a political party somehow represents "speech". Is there anyone left who believes either of the Duopoly political parties stands for whatever ideology, as an element of its nature?

When I see 'political party', at least one of the Duopolistic ones, I see nothing about any consistent ideology. I see a machine, the function of which is to organize in whatever way it can assurance that "our" people will get the power and "their" people will get shut out. Regardless of any individual ideologies, including conflicting ones, that may coexist within that party.

In other words "political party" means this. Job security at the expense of democratic ideals. THAT is what's contemplated as being worthy of "abolishment" --- not "speech". The ideals of any political party may vary and they may shift collectively (and certainly do) but the constant that makes it definable as a political party is the machine devoted to its own self-perpetuation -- which is wholly unrelated to "speech".

That's why my original comment was to charter political parties, as organizations like a corporation, for a finite term of twenty years, after which that charter and the party it licenses, expires. The organization is doused, the speech is not.

And as already pointed out, a political party is hardly the only vehicle by which speech or assembly may be exercised. Nobody needs a political party to espouse an idea.

Mind you, I'm not arguing that it IS possible to abolish the Democratic and Republican Parties, much as we all might want to. I'm saying it would not be the First Amendment that prevents it.

 

[S.J.]

You can abolish the parties but the same people will still be there.

Which is what they need to do.

For example, the term socialist fell out of favor so they changed to liberals. Then liberals fell out of favor and they became Progressive. I have no idea what the next term will be but they need to think of one fast!

Never ceases to amaze how a message board that's supposed to be about politics draws flies from the black hole of Political Science Ignorance. SMH

Nothing was "changed to Liberals". Liberals were those who wrote the Constitution and set up this whole great experiment. We were here from the beginning; nothing needed to be 'renamed'.

"Progressives" were a socio-political movement having little or nothing to do with that, and they were here and gone roughly a hundred years ago.

Socialism was another economic-political influence contemporary with Progressives which outlasted them and remains an ingredient of governmental structure to various degrees including e.g. the fire department that douses your house when it ignites, for the common good.

--- None of which have anything to do with political parties. All of the above have been associated with either Duopoly party and with no party at all.

A political party, after all, doesn't function as a repository for a philosophy. It's simply a machine to consolidate power. That's it. And it will do that using whatever ideological approach works for that time and place.

Political parties: political ideologies. Know the difference.

You are correct, consolidating power is the key.

It is all about collectivism and power. It just so happens that the elements of socialism are the most beneficial to accomplish this task.

Communism Is State Capitalism, Capitalism Is Communism for the Rich

Capitalism is collectivist. The employees create the revenue and the owners collect it.

Boy, are you confused!

 

[koshergrl]

You can abolish the parties but the same people will still be there.

Which is what they need to do.

For example, the term socialist fell out of favor so they changed to liberals. Then liberals fell out of favor and they became Progressive. I have no idea what the next term will be but they need to think of one fast!

Never ceases to amaze how a message board that's supposed to be about politics draws flies from the black hole of Political Science Ignorance. SMH

Nothing was "changed to Liberals". Liberals were those who wrote the Constitution and set up this whole great experiment. We were here from the beginning; nothing needed to be 'renamed'.

"Progressives" were a socio-political movement having little or nothing to do with that, and they were here and gone roughly a hundred years ago.

Socialism was another economic-political influence contemporary with Progressives which outlasted them and remains an ingredient of governmental structure to various degrees including e.g. the fire department that douses your house when it ignites, for the common good.

--- None of which have anything to do with political parties. All of the above have been associated with either Duopoly party and with no party at all.

A political party, after all, doesn't function as a repository for a philosophy. It's simply a machine to consolidate power. That's it. And it will do that using whatever ideological approach works for that time and place.

Political parties: political ideologies. Know the difference.

You are correct, consolidating power is the key.

It is all about collectivism and power. It just so happens that the elements of socialism are the most beneficial to accomplish this task.

Communism Is State Capitalism, Capitalism Is Communism for the Rich

Capitalism is collectivist. The employees create the revenue and the owners collect it.

Boy, are you confused!

He is a product of public schooling.

 

[froggy]

When the parties kee wanting to get their way and not trying anyting the other party puts forward just because it's not from their party it's time for a new system. That's what our gov't has become.

 

[koshergrl]

When the parties kee wanting to get their way and not trying anyting the other party puts forward just because it's not from their party it's time for a new system. That's what our gov't has become.

No, not really.

Our government is based on the Constitution. Leftists are battling us to destroy it. They have infiltrated both parties and engaged themselves across our country like a net or a cancer...but they are primarily federally funded.

End the federal funding. The cockroaches will die back.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why Can't This be done

1st amendment..

 

[Pogo]

Why Can't This be done

1st amendment..

See 114. You almost tripped over it.