Blueprint for a one-party United States of America. (1 Viewer)

[Torus34]

Should one of the two major political parties in the United States wish to become the only party -- that is, assume full control of the levers of political power so that no reversal is possible -- it can be done within the framework of the US Constitution.

The 'groundwork' requires achieving control over a sufficient number of State legislators and governorships to assure passage of Constitutional amendments.

Next, control over both houses of the federal legislature and the administration are required.

And that's it. The Supreme Court can be either 'stacked' in the party's favor through replacement appointments [slow] or through 'packing'. The number of judges is determined by Congress.

Laws/constitutional amendments can then be passed to extend a president's term, change election eligibility, modify the make-up or abolish the Electoral College, etc..

That's what's required. The question for 'we, the people' is, of course, is either of our two political parties showing signs of attempting such a series of moves?

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

 

[HonestJoe]

That's what's required.

That's quite a lot given the level of direct control that would need to be exerted on so many elected politicians and appointed officials. It wouldn't just be about them being members of the "correct" party since many in any party would resist such an effort.

The question for 'we, the people' is, of course, is either of our two political parties showing signs of attempting such a series of moves?

No.

 

[Craig234]

Actually, it's worse than that, and yes, Republicans DID get close to being able to do it. If they wanted, they could do anything - end voting, name their party or a leader dictator for life, allow for armed occupation of the US by the military, they could do anything.

Most likely, they'd have passed things utterly crippling the people's power to regulate or tax, even strong protections for unlimited money in politics, and included something to sell it to their base, like an abortion ban (20 years ago, a ban on gay marriage at least, if not more anti-gay measures). An amendment making English the official language, possibly Christianity the official religion.

 

[element94]

Should one of the two major political parties in the United States wish to become the only party -- that is, assume full control of the levers of political power so that no reversal is possible -- it can be done within the framework of the US Constitution.

The 'groundwork' requires achieving control over a sufficient number of State legislators and governorships to assure passage of Constitutional amendments.

Next, control over both houses of the federal legislature and the administration are required.

And that's it. The Supreme Court can be either 'stacked' in the party's favor through replacement appointments [slow] or through 'packing'. The number of judges is determined by Congress.

Laws/constitutional amendments can then be passed to extend a president's term, change election eligibility, modify the make-up or abolish the Electoral College, etc..

That's what's required. The question for 'we, the people' is, of course, is either of our two political parties showing signs of attempting such a series of moves?

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

If either do, there's always the second amendment, and revolution.

 

[Torus34]

That's quite a lot given the level of direct control that would need to be exerted on so many elected politicians and appointed officials. It wouldn't just be about them being members of the "correct" party since many in any party would resist such an effort.

No.

We've already seen large numbers of Republicans vote against President of the United States of America Donald Trump, right? ;-)

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

 

[Torus34]

Actually, it's worse than that, and yes, Republicans DID get close to being able to do it. If they wanted, they could do anything - end voting, name their party or a leader dictator for life, allow for armed occupation of the US by the military, they could do anything.

Most likely, they'd have passed things utterly crippling the people's power to regulate or tax, even strong protections for unlimited money in politics, and included something to sell it to their base, like an abortion ban (20 years ago, a ban on gay marriage at least, if not more anti-gay measures). An amendment making English the official language, possibly Christianity the official religion.

The point of greatest concern, I think, is that the US Constitution may not have sufficient checks and balances to eliminate the possibility outlined in the OP.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

 

[OrphanSlug]

You guys do understand that this practically happens just about every time that a President has a complicit party in control of Congress don't you?

Granted this does not happen all the time but for the most part if a party can gain the executive branch and the legislative branch at the same time that empowers one party far more will to do as they please. In those conditions it is not very important to work with or even really acknowledge the minority party.

This is one of many reasons other nations have more than two extremely powerful entrenched establishment parties playing this game waiting for their turn to control enough of government to marginalize their opposition (even if just in wish list.) Democrats have done this several times over, and so have Republicans when the shoe was on the other foot.

All we are talking about in this thread is permanency of one party gaining enough support that the other stays a minority.

The good news is in this nation the largest political group are Independents that never want to carry a membership card to either Democrats or Republicans, for now the idea of a single party in some degree of permanent control over this nation is largely moot. Every so often it will happen, but not on a long enough timeline to see us devolve into what we see in other nations where oppression is the only means left to ensure long term political power.

 

[Torus34]

@element94:

With reference to "If either do, there's always the second amendment, and revolution, " I would ask at this point whether the Republican Party is considered the party of choice of the conservatives, and whether the various armed unofficial armed 'militias' in the US side with the conservatives or the liberals.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Torus34]

You guys do understand that this practically happens just about every time that a President has a complicit party in control of Congress don't you?

Granted this does not happen all the time but for the most part if a party can gain the executive branch and the legislative branch at the same time that empowers one party far more will to do as they please. In those conditions it is not very important to work with or even really acknowledge the minority party.

This is one of many reasons other nations have more than two extremely powerful entrenched establishment parties playing this game waiting for their turn to control enough of government to marginalize their opposition (even if just in wish list.) Democrats have done this several times over, and so have Republicans when the shoe was on the other foot.

All we are talking about in this thread is permanency of one party gaining enough support that the other stays a minority.

The good news is in this nation the largest political group are Independents that never want to carry a membership card to either Democrats or Republicans, for now the idea of a single party in some degree of permanent control over this nation is largely moot. Every so often it will happen, but not on a long enough timeline to see us devolve into what we see in other nations where oppression is the only means left to ensure long term political power.

We may get a chance to see this in action on November 3rd et seq., or maybe not.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Guyzilla]

THere is already a blue or REDprint.


Rove's vision for a permanent Republican majority had little to do with winning properly run elections for the simple reason that there IS no Republican majority in free elections, and Rove knows that. To get a Republican majority and make it permanent, therefore, he had to 1) gain power; and 2) destroy the vitality of democratic institutions.
What Karl Rove REALLY Had in Mind for a "Permanent ...

www.huffpost.com/entry/what-karl-rove-really-had_b_60947

 

[Torus34]

THere is already a blue or REDprint.


Rove's vision for a permanent Republican majority had little to do with winning properly run elections for the simple reason that there IS no Republican majority in free elections, and Rove knows that. To get a Republican majority and make it permanent, therefore, he had to 1) gain power; and 2) destroy the vitality of democratic institutions.
What Karl Rove REALLY Had in Mind for a "Permanent ...
View attachment 67295933
www.huffpost.com/entry/what-karl-rove-really-had_b_60947

It's not a pleasant thing to see a democracy* destroy itself from within. Poland and Hungary, not to mention Egypt, Turkey and Russia, are current examples.

* Yes, Gotcha! Gang, I know the United States of America is a republic.

 

[joluoto]

Memes aside: scary stuff.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

THere is already a blue or REDprint.


Rove's vision for a permanent Republican majority had little to do with winning properly run elections for the simple reason that there IS no Republican majority in free elections, and Rove knows that. To get a Republican majority and make it permanent, therefore, he had to 1) gain power; and 2) destroy the vitality of democratic institutions.
What Karl Rove REALLY Had in Mind for a "Permanent ...
View attachment 67295933
www.huffpost.com/entry/what-karl-rove-really-had_b_60947

But guys like @Felis Leo seem to ignore Gingrich's plans for a permanent Republican majority in favor of scolding people for wanting to pack the SCOTUS in defense.
Funny how that myopia works.
Normally I'd agree that court packing is a bad idea however we have HAD more than nine justices before, so it is not unknown and neither were the reasons.

 

[Moderate Right]

Should one of the two major political parties in the United States wish to become the only party -- that is, assume full control of the levers of political power so that no reversal is possible -- it can be done within the framework of the US Constitution.

The 'groundwork' requires achieving control over a sufficient number of State legislators and governorships to assure passage of Constitutional amendments.

Next, control over both houses of the federal legislature and the administration are required.

And that's it. The Supreme Court can be either 'stacked' in the party's favor through replacement appointments [slow] or through 'packing'. The number of judges is determined by Congress.

Laws/constitutional amendments can then be passed to extend a president's term, change election eligibility, modify the make-up or abolish the Electoral College, etc..

That's what's required. The question for 'we, the people' is, of course, is either of our two political parties showing signs of attempting such a series of moves?

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

Voters have consistently made sure that no one party controls everything and even on the rare occasions it does, that soon changes. That's why the minority party usually always wins in the midterms. Your scenario has worse odds than winning the lottery.

 

[Torus34]

Voters have consistently made sure that no one party controls everything and even on the rare occasions it does, that soon changes. That's why the minority party usually always wins in the midterms. Your scenario has worse odds than winning the lottery.

Hi!

Thanks for taking time to respond.

I've no idea of the odds, but believe it worth mentioning.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Should one of the two major political parties in the United States wish to become the only party -- that is, assume full control of the levers of political power so that no reversal is possible -- it can be done within the framework of the US Constitution.

The 'groundwork' requires achieving control over a sufficient number of State legislators and governorships to assure passage of Constitutional amendments.

Next, control over both houses of the federal legislature and the administration are required.

And that's it. The Supreme Court can be either 'stacked' in the party's favor through replacement appointments [slow] or through 'packing'. The number of judges is determined by Congress.

Laws/constitutional amendments can then be passed to extend a president's term, change election eligibility, modify the make-up or abolish the Electoral College, etc..

That's what's required. The question for 'we, the people' is, of course, is either of our two political parties showing signs of attempting such a series of moves?

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

Far easier;

Take over both parties at once.

That is fund both parties using the money made from the use of KGB intelligence information to make insider trading type profits, see George Sorros, then, with all politicians needing you to bank roll their continious campaigns you own them all. The change of party is simply the cloak moving in front of the bull whilst the matiador stabs small spears into its' neck.

Any politician who is not caught by the money trap can be caught by personal trapping of some scandal which will be held over them for ever.

Should anybody escape all this they will be shunned and broken is some other way.

 

[Torus34]

Far easier;

Take over both parties at once.

That is fund both parties using the money made from the use of KGB intelligence information to make insider trading type profits, see George Sorros, then, with all politicians needing you to bank roll their continious [sic] campaigns you own them all. The change of party is simply the cloak moving in front of the bull whilst the matiador stabs small spears into its' neck.

Any politician who is not caught by the money trap can be caught by personal trapping of some scandal which will be held over them for ever.

Should anybody escape all this they will be shunned and broken is some other way.

Hi!

Certainly another take on my OP. Thanks for taking time to comment.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

 

[element94]

@element94:

With reference to "If either do, there's always the second amendment, and revolution, " I would ask at this point whether the Republican Party is considered the party of choice of the conservatives, and whether the various armed unofficial armed 'militias' in the US side with the conservatives or the liberals.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

I have no idea what's going on with the Republican Party, but it's interesting that conservatives of old continue to criticize that present abomination. There are militias that support one or the other. The second amendment isn't just a rightwing thing, there's plenty of democrats with guns that also support it.

 

[Torus34]

I have no idea what's going on with the Republican Party, but it's interesting that conservatives of old continue to criticize that present abomination. There are militias that support one or the other. The second amendment isn't just a rightwing thing, there's plenty of democrats with guns that also support it.

Hi!

Thank you for your response. I can't help wondering, if there are many liberal militias and plenty of Democrats who own guns, why we're bombarded with scares and alarums about the liberals wanting to take away guns?

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

 

[element94]

Hi!

Thank you for your response. I can't help wondering, if there are many liberal militias and plenty of Democrats who own guns, why we're bombarded with scares and alarums about the liberals wanting to take away guns?

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

Is anyone except rightwing lunatics saying that? Sounds like a Fox News/Breitbart hair-on-fire lie to the faithful.

 

[Torus34]

Is anyone except rightwing lunatics saying that? Sounds like a Fox News/Breitbart hair-on-fire lie to the faithful.

That claim is standard fare on the talk shows I check from time to time. It's usually coupled with words such as 'socialist' and 'Marxist'.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[apdst]

Who the hell would want one party calling all the shots? A constitutional amendment could be passed making the presidency a life time office, too. But why would anyone want to?

 

[independentusa]

Should one of the two major political parties in the United States wish to become the only party -- that is, assume full control of the levers of political power so that no reversal is possible -- it can be done within the framework of the US Constitution.

The 'groundwork' requires achieving control over a sufficient number of State legislators and governorships to assure passage of Constitutional amendments.

Next, control over both houses of the federal legislature and the administration are required.

And that's it. The Supreme Court can be either 'stacked' in the party's favor through replacement appointments [slow] or through 'packing'. The number of judges is determined by Congress.

Laws/constitutional amendments can then be passed to extend a president's term, change election eligibility, modify the make-up or abolish the Electoral College, etc..

That's what's required. The question for 'we, the people' is, of course, is either of our two political parties showing signs of attempting such a series of moves?

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

With total control of the SCOTUS, I could see the way for the trump Party to have them outlaw the Dems. They would have the excuse of they are a terrorist party and the conservatives on SCOTUS would do as they are told, since they do not reflect the constitution any longer, just what Trump tells them to do.

 

[apdst]

With total control of the SCOTUS, I could see the way for the trump Party to have them outlaw the Dems. They would have the excuse of they are a terrorist party and the conservatives on SCOTUS would do as they are told, since they do not reflect the constitution any longer, just what Trump tells them to do.

If the Democrats were the only party, it would outlaw Christianity, overturn the the Bill of Rights via the bench and pass legislation making white people 3/5 humans, abolishing their right to vote.

 

[Torus34]

With total control of the SCOTUS, I could see the way for the trump Party to have them outlaw the Dems. They would have the excuse of they are a terrorist party and the conservatives on SCOTUS would do as they are told, since they do not reflect the constitution any longer, just what Trump tells them to do.

Hi! Thanks for the response.

I believe you've got the general idea. The important point is that this can all be accomplished under the US Constitution.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.