The Constitution vs. the one party state.

[Torus34]

Much has been said and written about the separation of powers [administrative, legislative and judicial,] of the US republican form of democratic government. They are said to act as 'checks and balances' on each other -- a form of rocks, scissors, paper in which no single branch can reign supreme.

Comparatively little has been devoted to the way in which the Constitution can be subverted to support a one party state. We have had a single party in charge of both the administrative and legislative branches before, often for a number of presidential terms. We've remained a two party nation. Two things protected the country from a single party state: a degree of cooperation - I scratch your back, you scratch mine -- in the legislative houses and a respect, for lack of a better word, in both parties for the party neutrality of the Supreme Court.*

Given a single party in control of the administrative and legislative branches and willing to place people on the Supreme Court who will act as the party wishes, and the scene changes. Add in sufficient control of enough state legislatures to permit the party in charge of the federal mechanism to push through constitutional amendments and a single party state can emerge, all within the limits of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Those interested in pursuing this concept are directed to the current situation which obtains in Poland and Hungary. Turkey is also instructive, given the religious involvement in its government.

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

* Ed.: The current state of these two mighty bulwarks is well worth consideration. As a starting point, assume that a member of the Supreme Court announced immediate retirement tomorrow [ 9/1/2020]. Would the Majority Leader of the Senate of the United States wait for the election to demonstrate the 'will of the people' and put off selecting a replacement?

 

[Mycroft]

Much has been said and written about the separation of powers [administrative, legislative and judicial,] of the US republican form of democratic government. They are said to act as 'checks and balances' on each other -- a form of rocks, scissors, paper in which no single branch can reign supreme.

Comparatively little has been devoted to the way in which the Constitution can be subverted to support a one party state. We have had a single party in charge of both the administrative and legislative branches before, often for a number of presidential terms. We've remained a two party nation. Two things protected the country from a single party state: a degree of cooperation - I scratch your back, you scratch mine -- in the legislative houses and a respect, for lack of a better word, in both parties for the party neutrality of the Supreme Court.*

Given a single party in control of the administrative and legislative branches and willing to place people on the Supreme Court who will act as the party wishes, and the scene changes. Add in sufficient control of enough state legislatures to permit the party in charge of the federal mechanism to push through constitutional amendments and a single party state can emerge, all within the limits of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Those interested in pursuing this concept are directed to the current situation which obtains in Poland and Hungary. Turkey is also instructive, given the religious involvement in its government.

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

* Ed.: The current state of these two mighty bulwarks is well worth consideration.

It's even worse than that.

Prior to Trump, it hasn't really mattered which Party had how much control. Both the legislators and the President have been controlled by big money from donors and lobbyists. Until Trump, it would be more accurate to call the Dems and Reps the UniParty.

Of course, Trump isn't part of "The Big Club" and when he got elected, he threw a big wrench into the machine...and he's paid the price. More than four years of opposition and abuse.

There are TRILLIONS at stake.

 

[Torus34]

Addendum.

A straw in the wind has been the attempt by the legislatures in several states to strip powers from the office of governor before the new governor of the opposite party is seated. Court cases have resulted.

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

 

[marke]

Much has been said and written about the separation of powers [administrative, legislative and judicial,] of the US republican form of democratic government. They are said to act as 'checks and balances' on each other -- a form of rocks, scissors, paper in which no single branch can reign supreme.

Comparatively little has been devoted to the way in which the Constitution can be subverted to support a one party state. We have had a single party in charge of both the administrative and legislative branches before, often for a number of presidential terms. We've remained a two party nation. Two things protected the country from a single party state: a degree of cooperation - I scratch your back, you scratch mine -- in the legislative houses and a respect, for lack of a better word, in both parties for the party neutrality of the Supreme Court.*

Given a single party in control of the administrative and legislative branches and willing to place people on the Supreme Court who will act as the party wishes, and the scene changes. Add in sufficient control of enough state legislatures to permit the party in charge of the federal mechanism to push through constitutional amendments and a single party state can emerge, all within the limits of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Those interested in pursuing this concept are directed to the current situation which obtains in Poland and Hungary. Turkey is also instructive, given the religious involvement in its government.

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

* Ed.: The current state of these two mighty bulwarks is well worth consideration. As a starting point, assume that a member of the Supreme Court announced immediate retirement tomorrow [ 9/1/2020]. Would the Majority Leader of the Senate of the United States wait for the election to demonstrate the 'will of the people' and put off selecting a replacement?

The Constitution recognizes the innate human rights of all Americans and should never be twisted to serve any mob no matter how large who would pervert those rights for unclean reasons.

 

[noonereal]

It's even worse than that.

Prior to Trump, it hasn't really mattered which Party had how much control. Both the legislators and the President have been controlled by big money from donors and lobbyists. Until Trump, it would be more accurate to call the Dems and Reps the UniParty.

Of course, Trump isn't part of "The Big Club" and when he got elected, he threw a big wrench into the machine...and he's paid the price. More than four years of opposition and abuse.

There are TRILLIONS at stake.

do you really believe this?

fascinating, I think you do


what a study Trump is in mass manipulation, mass psychology

 

[Mycroft]

do you really believe this?

fascinating, I think you do


what a study Trump is in mass manipulation, mass psychology

Okay.

Moving on...

 

[noonereal]

Okay.

Moving on...

don't you find it fascinating how people with average reasoning ability do not use that ability in favor of tribe?

When broken down it's a simple process yet few have ever been able to so fully dominate their tribe as can Trump.

And the dopes on the left call him stupid.

 

[Vadinho]

don't you find it fascinating how people with average reasoning ability do not use that ability in favor of tribe?

When broken down it's a simple process yet few have ever been able to so fully dominate their tribe as can Trump.

And the dopes on the left call him stupid.

Being ruthless is not the same as being intelligent. Granted, any great criminal or sociopath or despot has some degree of intelligence but what they truly share is lust for power and a complete lack of empathy for anyone. Trump is no different then other such figures in American history. Carnegie, Mellon, JP Morgan, Rockefeller and many others were just as cutthroat and ruthless as Trump. Trump is not intellectually bright, he knows nothing except what gives him money or fame or power.

 

[noonereal]

Being ruthless is not the same as being intelligent. Granted, any great criminal or sociopath or despot has some degree of intelligence but what they truly share is lust for power and a complete lack of empathy for anyone. Trump is no different then other such figures in American history. Carnegie, Mellon, JP Morgan, Rockefeller and many others were just as cutthroat and ruthless as Trump. Trump is not intellectually bright, he knows nothing except what gives him money or fame or power.

There are many types of intelligence and different degrees of genius.

I would suggest that Trump is a master of mass psychology and a genius at stage and promotion.

He is also always thinking of what benefits him down the road best better than any human I have ever seen or read about.

 

[Juks]

As an outsiders I see several problems with your system and I believe that Donald Trumps behavior has highlighted some of them. It should have the effect of making your population more aware of the flaws in the system(and wanting to do something about them), but instead it seems to just have the effect that everyone thinks that either the problems disappears with Trump as president or that without Trump the problems will go away. No one seems to be inclined to discuss the real problems, not even when I have tried to provoke to what I consider the extreme. As an outsider, I truly don’t understand. Don’t you have any dreams or wishes for your society?



2 parties that are so much alike and that both span over several ideologies? So much alike that you need to put your voice (or vote) on what one person say or doesn’t say and just hope that he/she is at least a little bit honest? Where a conservative candidate (Donald Trump) can present a socialists problem (illegal immigration) and make every one believe that he truly sees it as a problem and wants to do something about it? Where those protesting (not only on how: Building a wall, but also on why) are called socialists and not conservatives or right wing liberals? Where the voting process is made complicated and unrepresentative just to make sure that the majority (and the minority) has no say in how to govern the country and in what direction you will take?

 

[Terryj]

As an outsiders I see several problems with your system and I believe that Donald Trumps behavior has highlighted some of them. It should have the effect of making your population more aware of the flaws in the system(and wanting to do something about them), but instead it seems to just have the effect that everyone thinks that either the problems disappears with Trump as president or that without Trump the problems will go away. No one seems to be inclined to discuss the real problems, not even when I have tried to provoke to what I consider the extreme. As an outsider, I truly don’t understand. Don’t you have any dreams or wishes for your society?



2 parties that are so much alike and that both span over several ideologies? So much alike that you need to put your voice (or vote) on what one person say or doesn’t say and just hope that he/she is at least a little bit honest? Where a conservative candidate (Donald Trump) can present a socialists problem (illegal immigration) and make every one believe that he truly sees it as a problem and wants to do something about it? Where those protesting (not only on how: Building a wall, but also on why) are called socialists and not conservatives or right wing liberals? Where the voting process is made complicated and unrepresentative just to make sure that the majority (and the minority) has no say in how to govern the country and in what direction you will take?

That is the problem with a 2 party system in this country, both parties profess different ideologies but in reality both are the same, and the people are no wiser. The 2 party system has done a fantastic job at brainwashing the people of the United States in the idea that they and they alone have the answers to the countries problems, I'm reminded of what Einstein said "You can not fix a problem with the same mindset that created it", yet here we are trying to fix our problems with the same 2 parties that created them in the first place. It's time for a reboot in this country, time to shake off the 2 party system and start electing people that we agree with instead of electing a person because we don't like the other candidate. The people in this country really need to look at who is running for office, there are a number of different parties, but sad to say the Democrats and Republicans have done a great propaganda job on the citizens of this country for the last 150 years. People see them as the fix all for all our problems, where in reality it is they who have created these problems.

 

[joko104]

Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

There is NOTHING the Democratic Party wants to eliminate more than "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

 

[Glitch]

Much has been said and written about the separation of powers [administrative, legislative and judicial,] of the US republican form of democratic government. They are said to act as 'checks and balances' on each other -- a form of rocks, scissors, paper in which no single branch can reign supreme.

Comparatively little has been devoted to the way in which the Constitution can be subverted to support a one party state. We have had a single party in charge of both the administrative and legislative branches before, often for a number of presidential terms. We've remained a two party nation. Two things protected the country from a single party state: a degree of cooperation - I scratch your back, you scratch mine -- in the legislative houses and a respect, for lack of a better word, in both parties for the party neutrality of the Supreme Court.*

Given a single party in control of the administrative and legislative branches and willing to place people on the Supreme Court who will act as the party wishes, and the scene changes. Add in sufficient control of enough state legislatures to permit the party in charge of the federal mechanism to push through constitutional amendments and a single party state can emerge, all within the limits of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Those interested in pursuing this concept are directed to the current situation which obtains in Poland and Hungary. Turkey is also instructive, given the religious involvement in its government.

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

* Ed.: The current state of these two mighty bulwarks is well worth consideration. As a starting point, assume that a member of the Supreme Court announced immediate retirement tomorrow [ 9/1/2020]. Would the Majority Leader of the Senate of the United States wait for the election to demonstrate the 'will of the people' and put off selecting a replacement?

The US Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with political parties, or their number. Political parties are the result of our freedom of association. As long was we have the freedom of association and the freedom to voice differing opinions, there will always be more than just one political party.

Even when the Democrat-Republican Party (a.k.a. the Party of Jefferson) dominated US politics from 1800 until 1828 there was still the minority political party the Federalists. Today we have dozens of political parties. The Republican and Democratic parties happen to be the largest two, but that doesn't mean they are the only two political parties.

 

[Glitch]

There is NOTHING the Democratic Party wants to eliminate more than "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

That is the very definition of anti-American.

 

[joluoto]

It's even worse than that.

Prior to Trump, it hasn't really mattered which Party had how much control. Both the legislators and the President have been controlled by big money from donors and lobbyists. Until Trump, it would be more accurate to call the Dems and Reps the UniParty.

Of course, Trump isn't part of "The Big Club" and when he got elected, he threw a big wrench into the machine...and he's paid the price. More than four years of opposition and abuse.

There are TRILLIONS at stake.

Trump is Big Club Big Time. He stuffed the Cabinet with corporate weasels.

 

[Mycroft]

Trump is Big Club Big Time. He stuffed the Cabinet with corporate weasels.

You don't know what the "Big Club" is.

Do you want me to show you what the Big Club is? Or would you rather stay with your ignorant notion of what it is?

 

[joluoto]

You don't know what the "Big Club" is.

Do you want me to show you what the Big Club is? Or would you rather stay with your ignorant notion of what it is?

The Big Club are the greedy corporations that tries to control government through bribes and lobbyists. And they are still in control, the Trump administration is now different in this regard than any previous administration. And that's the largest problem with any American government, they are all in the pockets of the corporate fat cats.

 

[Rich2018]

Much has been said and written about the separation of powers [administrative, legislative and judicial,] of the US republican form of democratic government. They are said to act as 'checks and balances' on each other -- a form of rocks, scissors, paper in which no single branch can reign supreme.

Comparatively little has been devoted to the way in which the Constitution can be subverted to support a one party state. We have had a single party in charge of both the administrative and legislative branches before, often for a number of presidential terms. We've remained a two party nation. Two things protected the country from a single party state: a degree of cooperation - I scratch your back, you scratch mine -- in the legislative houses and a respect, for lack of a better word, in both parties for the party neutrality of the Supreme Court.*

Given a single party in control of the administrative and legislative branches and willing to place people on the Supreme Court who will act as the party wishes, and the scene changes. Add in sufficient control of enough state legislatures to permit the party in charge of the federal mechanism to push through constitutional amendments and a single party state can emerge, all within the limits of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Those interested in pursuing this concept are directed to the current situation which obtains in Poland and Hungary. Turkey is also instructive, given the religious involvement in its government...

If one party has the presidency and a majority in both the House and the Senate, this is not a one party state.

 

[Torus34]

If one party has the presidency and a majority in both the House and the Senate, this is not a one party state.

Hi!

As you have stated it, it is neither fish nor fowl. If, through legislation, the minority party no longer has a voice ... . We've seen, in one of our states, the legislature pass laws to strip power from an incoming governor of the other party. That's but a mild instance of what can be done.


Regards, holiday best to you and yours.


Reminder. I try to respond to all who quote my posts. If you do not get a response from me, it may be that you've made it onto my 'Ignore' list.

 

[Rich2018]

Hi!

As you have stated it, it is neither fish nor fowl. If, through legislation, the minority party no longer has a voice ... . We've seen, in one of our states, the legislature pass laws to strip power from an incoming governor of the other party. That's but a mild instance of what can be done.


Regards, holiday best to you and yours.

Season's greetings in return

Of course a minority party has a voice, but the essence of democracy is that the minority get their say, but the majority get their way.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Hi!

As you have stated it, it is neither fish nor fowl. If, through legislation, the minority party no longer has a voice ... . We've seen, in one of our states, the legislature pass laws to strip power from an incoming governor of the other party. That's but a mild instance of what can be done.


Regards, holiday best to you and yours.


Reminder. I try to respond to all who quote my posts. If you do not get a response from me, it may be that you've made it onto my 'Ignore' list.

It seems like it should matter which power is being taken from the governor. Some states now are reviewing the emergency powers of the governor, that seems like a legitimate check and balance on what for some states has been an open ended power without review.

 

[swing_voter]

Much has been said and written about the separation of powers [administrative, legislative and judicial,] of the US republican form of democratic government. They are said to act as 'checks and balances' on each other -- a form of rocks, scissors, paper in which no single branch can reign supreme.

Comparatively little has been devoted to the way in which the Constitution can be subverted to support a one party state. We have had a single party in charge of both the administrative and legislative branches before, often for a number of presidential terms. We've remained a two party nation. Two things protected the country from a single party state: a degree of cooperation - I scratch your back, you scratch mine -- in the legislative houses and a respect, for lack of a better word, in both parties for the party neutrality of the Supreme Court.*

Given a single party in control of the administrative and legislative branches and willing to place people on the Supreme Court who will act as the party wishes, and the scene changes. Add in sufficient control of enough state legislatures to permit the party in charge of the federal mechanism to push through constitutional amendments and a single party state can emerge, all within the limits of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Those interested in pursuing this concept are directed to the current situation which obtains in Poland and Hungary. Turkey is also instructive, given the religious involvement in its government.

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

* Ed.: The current state of these two mighty bulwarks is well worth consideration. As a starting point, assume that a member of the Supreme Court announced immediate retirement tomorrow [ 9/1/2020]. Would the Majority Leader of the Senate of the United States wait for the election to demonstrate the 'will of the people' and put off selecting a replacement?

The reason the democrats control the presidency, house and senate is because trump was a horrible president. Voters turned trump out of office and gave democrats the senate.

Democracy in action.


.

 

[Torus34]

The reason the democrats control the presidency, house and senate is because trump was a horrible president. Voters turned trump out of office and gave democrats the senate.

Democracy in action.


.

Hi!

Administrations and control of each house of the legislature have changed hands many times during the almost two and a half centuries of our nation's existence. What should be of concern at the present time is the willingness of some Americans to sign on to attempts to put aside the unwritten agreements between our two political parties that have permitted our government to function in a relatively stable milieu.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Glitch]

The reason the democrats control the presidency, house and senate is because trump was a horrible president. Voters turned trump out of office and gave democrats the senate.

Democracy in action.


.

The only reason Biden is President is because at least 10 States violated their own election laws in order to defy the will of the people and select the Electors. The voters actually voted for Trump, but leftist filth were not going to allow that to happen. So they violated their own State election laws in order to prevent the voters from determining the Electors in accordance with State law.

Constitutionally speaking, it has always been the State legislatures who determine the Electors for the Electoral College, never the popular vote. It was the States who decided to allow the popular vote to determine the Electors, and it is the States who can change that method for selecting Electors any time they please. So as long as the State legislatures of every State determined their Electors for the Electoral College, then the Electoral College vote is legitimate.

Which makes Biden a legitimately selected President, since at least ten States had to violate their own election laws to make certain Biden became President.

FYI: The US is not, and never has been, a democracy. You really should have gotten an education instead of that leftist indoctrination of yours. It would have served you better.

 

[bongsaway]

It's even worse than that.

Prior to Trump, it hasn't really mattered which Party had how much control. Both the legislators and the President have been controlled by big money from donors and lobbyists. Until Trump, it would be more accurate to call the Dems and Reps the UniParty.

Of course, Trump isn't part of "The Big Club" and when he got elected, he threw a big wrench into the machine...and he's paid the price. More than four years of opposition and abuse.

There are TRILLIONS at stake.

Yeah, trump is so rich he grifted his way through four years of being president and when he left he told his faithful, don't send money to the gop, send it to me. Trump couldn't get a membership in the big club. Remember when the other world leaders were laughing at him? How about when the audience in the united nations laughed at him? So much winning.