I have few complaints about local politics.If the founders had the telephone system that we had a hundred years ago, then they would have made the federal senate a network of the state legislatures and the House a network of the municipal councils; and that would accommodate better local "politics."
What is "politics"?
The 17th along with the 16th amendments, IMO based upon my schooling, fundamentally changed how our Federal government operates.The problem then returns to the state legislatures appointing senators and their inability re-emerges, because the states are unable to manage the diversity. You just don't see it, because the chaos was elevated to the federal level by the 17th Amendment. The problem is exacerbated by desegregation laws.
I can only guess what you mean by the "charter system" so I'm left unable to respond rationally to the aboveExactly - The founders wanted that, but did not have all of the information, nor the technology to construct the government charters to be coordinated.
The only way to get there is by reordering the charter system to accommodate the graduation of social issues.
You probably have not found any forum that has anyone trying - I am the only one. It is going to require a complete reordering of the charter system.
That is the description of the "graduation of social issues."
Checks and balances went out the window a long time ago. The government was never intended to be a balance between the President, Congress, and SC, it was supposed to be a balance between the Federal Government, the States, and the people. The passage of the 17th Amendment basically robbed the States of their seat at the table in Washington, and the failure of Congress to expand the representatives along with the growing population robbed the people of having any real input into the system.If the “checks and balances” worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because, “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and it is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power are probably not in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.
It should be obvious, by now, that the Department of Justice is not adequately separated from partisan alignment. It does not matter which party is in power, the attorney general is always accused of appeasing the president that nominated the office appointment. That is what happens in a lack of separation - the check on power is ignored and the possibilities are exploited.
Less obvious, because it has been for so long, is the judiciary is not separate from the other branches if it is dependent on the other branches to graduate its hierarchy of offices. And of course, the Federal Reserve is a legislative body that needs to be organized constituent to each state - state commerce commissioner.
The solution is we need to reorder the entire three-level charter system. Amendments will not work, because the separation of government entities is "hard-wired" to the articles of the charters.
Fortunately the 34 states don't have to apply to Congress.When you get 34 State legislatures to apply to Congress for a State Constitutional Convention to propose changes be sure you let us know. Until that happens there will not be any changes until the US collapses completely from within. Which should occur sometime within this century.
Actually, they do. Either amendments are proposed by a two-thirds majority of Congress, or when two-thirds of the State legislatures apply to Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. See Article V of the US Constitution {emphasis added}.Fortunately the 34 states don't have to apply to Congress.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
What checks and balances are you referring to? Those which existed prior to 1913?If the “checks and balances” worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because, “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and it is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power are probably not in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.
It should be obvious, by now, that the Department of Justice is not adequately separated from partisan alignment. It does not matter which party is in power, the attorney general is always accused of appeasing the president that nominated the office appointment. That is what happens in a lack of separation - the check on power is ignored and the possibilities are exploited.
Less obvious, because it has been for so long, is the judiciary is not separate from the other branches if it is dependent on the other branches to graduate its hierarchy of offices. And of course, the Federal Reserve is a legislative body that needs to be organized constituent to each state - state commerce commissioner.
The solution is we need to reorder the entire three-level charter system. Amendments will not work, because the separation of government entities is "hard-wired" to the articles of the charters.
[/QUOTE]The Federal Reserve is not a legislative body, it is a private corporation who answers only to its member banks. The Congress was never given the power under the Constitution to delegate their responsibility to coin money to a private corporation or anyone else.
That's because you refused to take control and do your duty as a citizen.Today our government can best be described as a fascist state where mega corporations and the elite have taken control of government via bribes and corruption.
That's how your healthcare system was created.Laws are written by corporate attorneys who then give the legislation to which ever members of Congress they are paying to sponsor it. They then bribe whatever members of Congress they need to get the legislation passed. The entire system is a farce.
No, it wouldn't.This would be a good start, but including repeal of the 17th amendment would make it a great start, in reducing control of the Federal government by the political parties and returning it to the people and the States.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?