End filibusters now. Filibusters violate the basic democratic principle of majority rule. The filibuster is not democratic.
End filibusters now. Since the filibuster violates the fundamental democratic principle of majority rule, the filibuster is absolutely not democratic. In my opinion, filibusters result in the tyranny of the minority by allowing the minority to dictate and control the legislative process countering the will of the majority. Filibusters are a significant reason that the Legislative Branch of the United States government is held in such low esteem. Filibusters prevent effective and timely governance. End filibusters now by changing Senate filibuster rules. It baffles me to think that the filibuster survives in the Senate in light of the council of the Founders and its divisive and tragic history.
In The Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton explicitly explained the importance of the simple majority as follows:
‘œ(This) ‘contradicts that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail’.
But this is not all; what at first sight may seem a remedy, is in reality a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) is in its tendency to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number’. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must in some way or other go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority respecting the best mode of conducting it; the majority in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will over-rule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence tedious delays ‘“ continual negotiation and intrigue ‘“ contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: For upon some occasions, things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended or fatally defeated’.
It is not difficult to discover that a principle of this kind gives greater scope to foreign corruption as well as to domestic faction, than that which permits the sense of the majority to decide; though the contrary of this has been presumed’.’
In situations where foreign countries, international conglomerates, critical domestic industries like the automotive industry or the financial industries, or those seeking to implement or legislate changes in mores of society, Hamilton continued with some interesting and relevant observations regarding requirements for more than a simple majority to make legislative decisions in The Federalist No. 22:
‘œIn such a state of things, (any entity seeking to influence the legislative process) would evidently find it much easier by his bribes and intrigues to tie up the hands of government from making’ (decisions), where two thirds (or 60) of all votes were requisite to that object, than where a simple majority would suffice. In the first case he would have to corrupt a smaller number; in the last a greater number. Upon the same principle it would be much easier for a foreign power with which we were at war, to perplex our councils and embarrass our exertions. And in a commercial view we may be subjected to similar inconveniences. A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with much greater facility prevent our forming a connection with her competitor in trade; though-such a connection should be ever so beneficial to ourselves.
Evils of this description ought not be so regarded as imaginary. One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford to easy an inlet to foreign (or nefarious) corruption.’
Hamilton demonstrated several good reasons to end filibusters now. Our Constitution was formulated on the bases of simple majority rule. The only exceptions specified in the Constitution are the Presidential veto override by the Congress, treaty ratification in the Senate, and the amendment process outlined in Article V. The filibuster violates this concept. Consequently, we should end filibusters now.
“‘When we dig into the history of Congress, it seems that the filibuster was a mistake. In 1805′ Aaron Burr’ offered this advice’. A truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. You have lots of rules that do the same thing. And he singles out the previous question motion (now Cloture where 60 Senators end filibuster)’. When Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn”t think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book;’ and the filibuster became enshrined in Senate rules.”
The filibuster was responsible for prolonging some of the most egregious wrongs of the Jim Crow’ era.
End filibusters now. The filibuster is not democratic. Filibusters extended Jim Crow segregation. The filibuster is an affront to We the People.
‘œIn 1917, the Senate approved Rule 22, which allowed it to end debate on a bill if two-thirds of senators vote for ‘cloture.’ Cloture was powerless against filibusters supported by more than a third of senators allowing Southern Democrats to use filibusters to kill every meaningful civil rights bill for the next 47 years’. (During this time)’, the House passed bills to outlaw discrimination and protect the right of black citizens to vote, only to watch the bills killed by filibusters in the Senate.In an era when white mobs frequently lynched black people with impunity, Southern senators used filibusters to defeat anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1935, 1938, 1948 and 1949′. Whatever their party affiliation, critics of the filibuster are undeniably correct: The tactic is intrinsically undemocratic’. In 1975, the Senate changed the number of votes needed for cloture from 67 to 60.’
Hamilton”s discussion of the problems arising from decisions requiring more than a simple majority were prophetic. Southern Democrats used the filibuster to stop civil rights laws and prevent lynching of blacks in the south. Currently, problems preventing congress from completing significant legislation, policy decisions, and approval of Judges and Executive Branch appointments requiring Senate approval can be directly traced to issues related to actions requiring 60 votes for cloture in the Senate rather than a simple, ‘œup or down,’ majority vote. Failure to act shows ‘œWe the people’ that the Senate has no respect for the will of citizens of the United States.
The filibuster is not democratic and thwarts the will of We the People.
End filibusters now!
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Which mainstream? Mainstream in the United States is a political misnomer. We have at least two: the progressive left and the conservative right mainstreams.
Contrary to the opinion, hopes, dreams, and wishes of progressives and the Democrat Party, the river of political and economic life in the United States of America does not have one monolithic mainstream. The United States of America has at least two distinct and virtually irreconcilable mainstreams or currents. Consequently, no single mainstream exists. The population of the left lives in large population urban centers primarily located along our coasts, the small blue areas in the 2016 county by county Presidential Election map. The left is a philosophically Marxist, socialist, progressive, liberal, Democrat mainstream that believes in a living evolving Constitution. The left cast approximately 2.3% more popular votes for Secretary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election. The right mainstream covers the vast majority of the nation, the red counties of the 2016 Presidential election map. In the Constitutional Electoral College, voters on the right gave President Trump 306 Electoral votes compared to 234 votes for Secretary Clinton, a 13.3% majority. The right is philosophically conservative supporting capitalism, the importance of our Judeo-Christian heritage, individualism and personal responsibility, Constitutional “original intent,” fiscal conservatism, and limited government.
In discussions of the Federal Judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, only the left makes the statement that the nominee must represent the œmainstream of America. Since no mainstream exists in the river of political life in the United States, the statement by Democrat Senators regarding Judge Neil Gorsuch is nothing more than demagoguery. They need to stop deferring from reality and state truthfully that they would only be satisfied by a Supreme Court Justice nominee who is philosophically Marxist and a judicial activist. It sounds so all inclusive, but the statement includes only the left’s mainstream. Members of the Democrat Party simply need to state their position openly and honestly. We the People, in the “Deplorable Class,” do not like “Establishment Speak.”
Members of the Democrat Party need to understand one thing. No one political mainstream exists in the United States of America.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
The forgotten ones in the Deplorable Class, live in towns like this. We are depending on our GOP congressional leaders to work for us every year. Just, Get ‘er Done!
Republicans, one of the “forgotten” ones on the “Trump Train” has some advice. We elected you to do your job every year. That includes even numbered years. We did not elect you to run for office in even numbered years, 2022, 2024, and 2026 etc. You have a job to do this year, 2022; and the job is not just to run for office, the job is to do the work of We the People. Do not blow it! Do not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Act like Democrats used to act. Work as a unified team not like the President vs RINOS vs Republican Senate and House Leaders vs Republican rank and file legislators vs conservatives vs the “Trump Train, forgotten” ones like me.
Republicans in the Legislative Branch need to learn to compromise among yourselves and offer a unified plan for each agenda item. The first year’s legislative agenda went fairly well, but unity would have given us so much more. If you lose 2022 to campaigning, many on the “Trump Train” will jump off. You know it, and that is a corner of the swamp that forgotten ones like me despise. Along with President Trump and his Cabinet, go lock yourselves in a room somewhere and come up with bills that all can support for each agenda item. Forget your need to make political points that are only about your next election and keep your fights in the room. Remember what Thumper’s Mother told him in Bambi, If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all. Work for We the People for a change. Remember, forgotten ones do not forget. Stop giving the opposition, the news media, fuel to stoke the viral speculation fires that dominate network news, cable news, and other news outlet coverage. Get unified; get organized; and get er done.
Writing as a member of one group among the forgotten ones of the Left’s “Deplorable Class,” Biblical Christians or Evangelicals, Mister President, you won. You do not need to counter punch anymore. It did allow you to control the narrative during the primaries and the election; and, you won. We, the forgotten ones, can mentally counter punch for you now. You taught us how to do it. Consequently, everyone on the Trump Train knows that Senator Schemer is a bad actor. Pointing it out, counter punching, only angers the Left and Democrat legislators. It serves no legislative purpose and makes legislative progress more difficult. It is also making Senate confirmation of your Cabinet, other administration officials, Supreme Court Justices, and other Federal Judges more difficult. You need friends or at least frenemies, not sworn enemies in the Legislative Branch to be the best that you can be. Save all the good counter punches for the 2022 and 2024 elections. Surprise us then.
RINOS, you know who you are. Join the team now. Do not be part of the reason Republicans snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The opposition, the news media, the Democrat Party, the progressive moneyed elite, and their army of flash mob demonstrators, Antifa, and anarchists, always smell blood in the water. The sharks are always circling. Republicans, unify to accomplish all that is necessary to keep turning this country around, and Make America Great Again. RINOS, are you with the forgotten ones or not? Are you with Republicans, including President Trump, or not? RINOS, remember, the forgotten ones do not forget. RINOS, stay with the team, get organized, and get er done!
We the People, the forgotten ones in the Deplorable Class, are depending on all of you.
Just, Get er Done!
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
It is my opinion that Democrats support the Constitution only when the Constitution or the Federal Courts decisions support and provide an advantage in promoting their agenda. Democrats rarely defend the actual words of the Constitution, as defined when it was written, the “original intent” or “manifest tenor” since they believe that the Constitution should reflect current mores of our society. In other words, the Democrat Party and the left are at best Constitutional pragmatists. President Obama clearly demonstrated that he did not support and defend the Constitution when he repeatedly used Executive Orders to by-pass the Legislative Branch because he was unable to get his agenda items passed by congress. Many of his orders were deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court proving his failure to support the Constitution.
Democrats support for the peaceful transfer of Constitutional power was weak at the Inauguration of President Trump.
The 30% of the Democrat members of the House of Representatives who did not attend the Inauguration of Donald Trump also demonstrate, by their behavior, that they do not support or defend the Constitution. Actions speak louder than words. Each Inauguration where the new President comes from a different political party is a peaceful, Constitutional transfer of power. Failure to attend the Inauguration demonstrates that these Democrat Representatives do not support the provisions of the Constitution that provide for this peaceful transfer of power. Each Inauguration is a celebration of our Constitution not a celebration of the next President. Inauguration attendance demonstrates whether or not these Democrats support the Constitution and defend the processes set up to ensure the peaceful transfer of power from one political party to the other.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
A Constitution solution is badly needed by We the People of the United States of America. On Monday July 29, 2024, President Biden proposed sweeping reforms to the Supreme Court of the United States requiring at least two Constitutional Amendments. Apparently, Vice-President Harris and Democrats also support President Biden’s proposal. Neither the current proposal nor “court packing,” increasing the number of SCOTUS members, will repair the flaw in our Constitution. The flaw in our Constitution is that it does not provide meaningful checks or balances on decisions rendered by Federal Judges at every level. For at least the last 100 years, both major political parties, progressives, and conservatives have complained that some federal court decisions were “unconstitutional,” failed to reflect the will of their constituents, or the “people.” Such decisions simply become the “law of the land,” and each side complained. In my opinion, the best solution is a Constitutional Amendment that provides a method to “override” federal court decisions that can be initiated by either the Executive or Legislative branches of our government.
Despite this issue, the Founders of our nation had a profound, providential vision for the future of the United States of America. They based their vision on the fact that the people of this nation shared a common Judeo-Christian heritage. That heritage included a common religion, a common moral and ethical code, a common industrious nature based on the colonization of a new world with new and unknown challenges, and common participation in a successful revolutionary war fought against one of the leading military powers on earth. The faith of the Fathers of this nation in its people allowed them to frame a constitution based on limited government and maximum freedom for the people. Freedom for the people is dependent on shared moral and ethical values, virtue. The Framers demonstrated faith in the governed by their choice of the first three words of the constitution, “We the People.”
THE SCOTUS POWER DEBATE
The lack of Constitutional checks and balances on the Judicial Branch has been debated from the time of ratification debates to modern debates over judicial activism which Constitutional conservative argue requires a Constitution solution. In The Federalist Papers, supporters of the proposed Constitution inferred that judicial decisions consistent with the manifest tenor, context and meaning, of the Constitution is good behavior as a jurist. In The Federalist No. 78 states, Alaxander Hamilton wrote,
Courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void.
In The Federalist No. 81, he wrote,
In the first place, there is not one syllable in the plan under consideration, which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution
Justices of the federal judiciary no longer agree with the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, who stated in The Federalist No. 49,
As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power and it is from the people themselves; who, as the grantors of the commission (Constitution), can alone declare its true meaning and enforce its observance.
Finally, in The Federalist No. 81, Hamilton discussed impeachment of Federal judges writing:
And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check (on the Judiciary), which the power of instituting impeachments would give to (the Legislative Branch) upon the members of the judicial department. This alone is complete security. There never can be danger that the judges would hazard the united resentment of the body (Legislative Branch) entrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means (impeachment) of punishing their presumption by degrading (removing) them (judges) from their stations (the court).
The Framers intended that federal judges should rule based on the Manifest Tenor of the Constitution” and its amendments. They further inferred that decisions not adhering to the manifest tenor of the Constitution would not be consistent with good Behavior as a jurist. Finally, they argued that judges issuing rulings outside the manifest tenor of the Constitution should be impeached for their judicial actions. Since Judges have never been impeached for lack of this “good Behavior,” we need a Constitution solution.
In the Anti-Federalist, articles opposed to ratification of the Constitution, Robert Yates argued that the threat of impeachment for rulings outside the manifest tenor of the Constitution” did not provide realistic checks or balances on the Judiciary. President Thomas Jefferson disagreed with the power to rule on the Constitutionality of laws given to the Federal Judiciary by Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison. Jefferson wrote,
If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide], and it would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Abraham Lincoln expressed similar concerns in his First Inaugural Address as follows:
The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Governmentis to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Courtthe people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal (Supreme Court).As a result, some would say, we live under a dictatorship of the federal judiciary, an oligarchy.”
The debate over the power of the federal judiciary has raged from the Constitutional Convention to this day. Is it time to solve the problem? In my opinion, the time is now.
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
In the absence of impeachment, the only remedy, or flawed Constitution solution We the People have for an unrestrained Federal Judiciary, is a Constitutional Amendment. The proposed Amendment should allow any member of the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, or the President of the United States to introduce legislation that would override any Federal Court decision at either the appellate or Supreme Court level.
The Amendment should have specific procedural guidelines, a reasonable timeline for action, and priority over other legislative activity in both houses of congress. It is my suggestion that this Amendment should include the following procedures. A “judicial decision override” bill, named after the court case in question, such as “Roe v. Wade Override,” would be introduced by a legislator in their house of the legislature. A Presidential “override” bill should be introduced in both houses of congress at the same time. The proposed Amendment must preclude a Senate filibuster at every stage of deliberations and voting. Within five working days of “override” bill introduction, each house of the legislature would conduct a vote, without debate, to start the “override” process which would occur only when both houses agreed to consider the “override.” Next, legislators in each House would have two weeks to prepare testimony for and against the “override.” Preparation of “override” testimony would occur concurrently with other legislative activities. In the next week, proponents and opponents of the “override” from both houses of the legislature would plan their testimony concurrently with other legislative responsibilities. During the next two weeks, testimony for and against the “override” would occur. In the first week, one house would hear testimony from the opposition to the “override” while the other house would hear testimony from supporters of the “override.” In the second week, testimony roles would be reversed in the two houses of the legislature. During the following week, each house would hold floor debates on the “override.” Each house would vote on the “override” at the end of the week of floor debate. If the “override” achieves a simple majority in both houses of the Legislative Branch, the bill would go to the President for signature resulting in a successful federal judicial decision “override.” In the case of a Presidential veto, a two-thirds majority of both houses would overrule the veto resulting in a successful federal judicial decision “override.” The vote to overrule a Presidential veto should occur in both houses of the legislature the first working day after the veto without debate.
One contentious issue related to the proposed Constitutional Amendment is its impact on previous court decisions enacted outside the manifest tenor of the Constitution which many have called Judicial Activism. My suggestion is for the Amendment to establish a joint legislative committee to review previous court decisions. This committee should have a limited time frame for actions, one to three years. Recommendation for Congressional action to reverse standing Federal Court decisions should follow the process described above.
In my opinion, a Constitutional Amendment of this nature is needed since the Federal Courts have shown their disrespect for the will of We the People. Our courts show disrespect by overturning both State Constitutional Amendments and state referenda passed by a majority of We the People in several states. Court decisions also demonstrate disrespect for We the People when they ignore the “manifest tenor of the constitution” ratified by We the People. The proposed Amendment is a true flawed Constitution solution.
I still believe our Constitution is the best ever conceived throughout world history. However, We the People have allowed the Federal Courts to act as an oligarchy for decades. Is it now time to correct its one major flaw? In my opinion,
We need an Amendment providing a flawed Constitution solution!
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
In my opinion, the left, Marxists, communists, and progressives of the world were not fighting the same Cold War that the United States and our allies were fighting. For the left, the strategic “Cold War”is a philosophical ideological “Cold War.” With this thought and the recent death of Fidel Castro in mind, it seems an appropriate time to consider the place of Fidel Castro, in the world and the nature of the Cold War. After his revolutionaries defeated the Cuban dictator Batista, Castro openly embraced communism. He nationalized the economy of Cuba and sought support from the communist regime in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the Old Soviet Union, today’s Russia. He brutally eliminated political opposition. With the support of the Soviet Union, Cuba became the center for communist revolutionary expansion into several countries in Latin America. Probably the most notable was Venezuela. The communist dictator of Venezuela nationalized the country’s oil industries which had been developed by North American and European petroleum companies. Cuba allowed the Soviet Union to position nuclear missiles on the island nearly bringing the world to a nuclear disaster before the missiles were removed from Cuba. The fall of the USSR effectively ended Soviet financial support of the Castro regime, and greatly reduced Cuba’s influence in the western hemisphere. From this perspective, Fidel Castro was a central figure in the Cold War in the Americas.
To me, the Cold War was a geopolitical, economic, militaristic contest between the United States and the USSR, the two dominant nuclear powers of the world at the time. These two powers competed to bring allies into their spear of influence throughout the world. The Cold War ended when the United States and our allies were victorious after fall of the USSR. Dismantling the USSR in non-Russian Eastern Europe completed the process. Although the USSR was a totalitarian communist regime, it was not the only totalitarian communist regime in the world. China, North Korea, Vietnam, the communist regimes of the Eastern European Soviet bloc, Cuba, Venezuela and several other countries in Latin America were also totalitarian communist regimes. Without the support of the USSR, Eastern European countries overthrew their communist governments embracing various forms of democracy.
During the height of the Cold War, Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the USSR said, communism will outlast capitalism, not We will bury you!”
However, several powerful totalitarian communism regimes still exist in Asia and Latin America and communist revolutionaries still battle to control countries in some parts of the world. It seems appropriate to ask a question. Did we actually win the Cold War? We certainly did not eliminate totalitarian communist regimes and revolutionaries as a threat and influence in the world. Perhaps a more important question to ask is this. Did we understand the nature of the Cold War from the strategic perspective of our Marxists, communist enemies. In a 1960’s speech at the United Nations, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev used a phrase that was translated We will bury you!” A better translation of the phrase is, communism will outlast capitalism. From the standpoint of Marxist philosophy expressed in The Communist Manifesto, Khrushchev’s phrase provides a simple strategic description of the goal of communism or Marxism for the world. Khrushchev was not speaking of a geopolitical, economic, militaristic contest, he was speaking of an evolutionary paced contest of philosophy and ideology, Marxism versus capitalism. Given the attitude of millennials in the United States toward Marxist ideas underpinning communism, socialism, progressivism, and liberalism, or the brutality of totalitarian communist regimes, and their lack of understanding of capitalism and this nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage, we should ask this question. Was Nikita Khrushchev correct when he said, Communism will outlast capitalism?
In my opinion, the Marxist of the socialist, progressive, liberal movement certainly out foxed the conservative capitalistic thinkers of the United States and the world. One of the principal objectives of America’s Crossroads is an informative discussion of the goals and tactics of the left as they seek to convert capitalistic societies, especially the United States, into Marxist societies. Pragmatists of the left have been formulating and slowly teaching and implementing their ideas since the early 1800’s.
When considering the question,is Marxist philosophy the basis for leftist ideology, it is important to understand that Marxist philosophy has been largely integrated into the modern social sciences. Ideas like wealth redistribution, progressive taxation, curtailing or eliminating inheritance rights, diminishing the influence of Biblical Christianity, eliminating or degrading the Biblical family among other topics are all concepts now embedded in liberal arts and social science curricula at all stages of our education system. Competition, individualism, self-confidence, personal responsibility, and strong moral and ethical values are critical elements to successful capitalistic societies. The Biblical Christian church and family are institutions where these values are taught and modeled for children by church leaders and parents. The role of the individual in Biblical Christian culture and Marxist or progressive culture is antithetical in nature. Before a society like the United States with a strong Judeo-Christian heritage and capitalist economy can be converted to society based on Marxist philosophy, the population has to embrace Marxism. To accomplish this goal, the left has achieved an educational dictatorshipwhere their ideas are taught in virtually all the liberal arts and social science curricula throughout the educational system. Marxist progressives have accomplished many of their objectives toward globalism in both domestic and foreign policy in the United States.
Finally, it is my opinion that the left has even managed to integrate its philosophy into jurisprudence in the United States. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, legal progressives slowly started to substitute case law and the opinion of judges about the Constitution for the manifest tenor and original intent of the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury versus Madison was critical to this evolution in jurisprudence. Consequently, this shift in the Supreme Court’s attitude towards the Constitution exposed a flaw in our Constitution. There are no meaningful constitutional checks or balances on the decisions of the federal judiciary. Marxists and progressives on the left have succeeded in using this flaw to enact laws and regulations that could not be instituted through the legislative process.
Since the people of the United States of America have failed to understand the Cold War from the perspective of the Marxist or the socialists, progressives, and liberals, We the People are close to losing the real Cold War, the philosophical battle between communism or Marxist philosophy and capitalism. The extremely important philosophical or ideological “cold war” is not over; and, in my opinion, capitalism and conservative Judeo-Christianity is losing.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
The Trump Train carries a larger portion of the total conservative movement and forgotten Democrats. Looks like the track gs to 2024.
The Trump Train movement envisioned and then activated by Donald Trump may be what Tea Party founders wished they had formulated. In my opinion, the reason Donald Trump succeeded where others failed, is the fact that the Trump Train carries a larger portion of the total conservative movement and forgotten Democrats. The leaders of the Tea Party movement restricted their vision to balanced budgets, a smaller less intrusive government at all levels, and reestablishment of constitutional original intent rejecting social and religious conservatives. President Elect Trump asked evangelicals, labor oriented Reagan Democrats from the Rust Belt, and the Fly Over rural voters to climb aboard the Trump Train. Additionally, Trump’s call for economic reforms, lower taxes, and regulatory reform, incorporated significant elements of the Tea Party agenda. All of the other groups were left out or marginalized by the Tea Party movement, the Democrat party, and, during the last two cycles, the Republican Party.
For followers of Biblical Christianity, evangelicals, the fact that President Elect Trump asked them and important Catholic leaders to formulate religious advisory groups is extremely encouraging. He quickly demonstrated an understanding that religious liberty has been under attack by the courts at all levels, government at all levels, and the left’s educational dictatorship. Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees also encouraged the support of evangelicals. Consequently, he received the highest level of support from the evangelical communities of the last four Republican Presidential candidates. This masterfully crafted coalition on board the Trump Train ushered in the Trump Presidency.
Biblical Christians aboard the Trump Train will watch the actions of President Trump in his first hundred days, first year, and first two years with hope, prayers, and wary skepticism. In my opinion, President Trump is on a very short leash. My prayer is that he will only tug lightly on that leash and succeed beyond all our hopes and prayers.
SO FAR, THE TRUMP TRAIN HAS ENOUGH BELLS AND WHISTLES TO GET US TO 2024.
THEN IT WILL BE PENCE24 GIVES US 8 MORE. WHAT A FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM THAT WILL BE!
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
The 2016 election cycle raised several questions about our political problems and the Constitution.
The 2016 election cycle raised several questions about our political problems and the Constitution. The first two problems are primarily Constitutional issues which influence the political problems facing the United States. The first Constitutional issue is the fact that the Judicial Branch is unchecked in Constitution. In my opinion, the only remedy for this issue is a Constitutional Amendment. The second Constitutional issue is problem of anchor babies born in the United States who have illegal immigrant parents. There is no clear answer to this question. However, Amendment XIV, Section 5, of our Constitution, ratified in 1868, offers the following potential solution: The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. Amendment XIV was clearly written to address all issues related to the citizenship of former slaves following the Civil War. Section 5 gives Congress the power to formulate appropriate legislation in this matter. Unfortunately, the Congress has not even investigated or proposed legislation to solve the issue since it is one of those political problems that could adversely affect elections. Failure to attempt to solve political problems demonstrates to We the People that the system is rigged. Keeping the anchor baby issue alive helps some politicians maintain political power. The issue is not the issue, maintaining political power is the issue for these type politicians. They simply seek to get re-elected. Change is necessary.
Third, the question about the wisdom of forming additional political parties continues to be one of the more personally confusing political problems facing our nation. During the 2016 election campaign disgruntled conservatives in the Republican Party seriously considered forming a third, conservative party. In the United States, we have a constitutional republic not a parliamentarian system like that of Great Britain or Israel. Our Constitution was formulated on the bases of simple majority rule. The only exceptions specified in the Constitution are Presidential veto override by the Congress, treaty ratification in the Senate, and the amendment process outlined in Article V. Consequently, when more than two political parties gain significant electoral participation, the result could be election of a President having a plurality of votes rather than a majority of votes. The situation contradicts one of the major tenants of the republican form of government, majority rule.
For example, President Clinton only garnered approximately 45% of the popular vote both times he was elected. Votes for the two conservatives, President Bush and Ross Perot, totaled at least 55%, in 1992. The same situation occurred in the next presidential election when the Republican candidate was Senator Dole. Again conservatives garnered approximately 55% of the vote. President Clinton claimed a mandate in each election; but he never had a majority vote of the citizens. Of course, our Electoral College system modifies and mitigates the relationship between votes cast by citizens and Electoral College votes. President Clinton did have significant Electoral College victories under our constitutional system in both elections.
If, as a nation, we believe that our national leaders, President, Representatives, and Senators should serve when they are elected by the majority of our citizens, provisions would be required when there are more than two popular political parties. The only way to elect national leaders with a majority of the popular vote would be to require runoff elections when no candidate achieves a simple majority. In the case of the presidential election, this requirement would be state-by-state to maintain our Electoral College system. Such a system would prevent the election of the liberal presidential candidate when the majority of the citizens voted for conservative presidential candidates which occurred in 1992 and 1996. States could follow suit if they chose to do so for state and local elections. Of course, such a remedy would require the long and rancorous procedure of a constitutional amendment. Such a process would also be expensive.
Fourth, one of the more personally vexing political problems facing the nation is the Senate filibuster which violates the democratic republican principle of majority rule. In The Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton explicitly explained the importance of the simple majority as follows:
“(This) contradicts that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.
But this is not all; what at first sight may seem a remedy, is in reality a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) is in its tendency to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must in some way or other go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority respecting the best mode of conducting it; the majority in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will over-rule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence tedious delays “ continual negotiation and intrigue “ contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: For upon some occasions, things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended or fatally defeated.
It is not difficult to discover that a principle of this kind gives greater scope to foreign corruption as well as to domestic faction, than that which permits the sense of the majority to decide; though the contrary of this has been presumed.”
In situations where foreign countries, international conglomerates, critical domestic industries like the automotive industry or the financial industries, or those seeking to implement or legislate changes in mores of society, Hamilton continued with some interesting and relevant observations regarding requirements for more than a simple majority to make legislative decisions in The Federalist No. 22:
In such a state of things, (any entity seeking to influence the legislative process) would evidently find it much easier by his bribes and intrigues to tie up the hands of government from making (decisions), where two thirds of all votes were requisite to that object, than where a simple majority would suffice. In the first case he would have to corrupt a smaller number; in the last a greater number. Upon the same principle it would be much easier for a foreign power with which we were at war, to perplex our councils and embarrass our exertions. And in a commercial view we may be subjected to similar inconveniences. A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with much greater facility prevent our forming a connection with her competitor in trade; though-such a connection should be ever so beneficial to ourselves.
Evils of this description ought not be so regarded as imaginary. One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford to easy an inlet to foreign (or nefarious) corruption.”
Hamilton’s discussion of the problems arising from decisions requiring more than a simple majority were prophetic. Recent problems preventing congress from completing significant legislation and policy decisions can be directly traced to issues related to actions requiring a 60 percent vote in the Senate rather than a simple, up or down, majority vote. Failure to act shows We the people that political problems prevail in the legislative branch of our government, specifically the Senate filibuster.
The fifth and final group of political problems facing our nation is the manner in which too many of the bills passed in congress link or embed unrelated initiatives and problem solutions into one piece of legislation. The procedure is often done accommodate the opposition to get votes or hide unpopular activities or programs from the voters. The result is often passage of unwanted laws that are not supported by the majority of We the People. Such acts reinforce the perception that the desires of We the People are irrelevant to those we elect to represent us or serve as our President. We the People do not elect national leaders to do what is expedient; we elect our leaders to do what is right; and what we elected them to do.
Each item of legislation should be approved individually by a simple majority. For example, linking bills that the defund Planned Parenthood and fund the Defense Department or emergency defense funding is unconscionable. It ensures failure of both bills or angers We the People. Each should be considered on their own merits and given an up or down simple majority vote. We the People do not appreciate the games played by our elected officials in Washington, DC. DC games demonstrate to We the people that the system is rigged. These types of DC games demonstrate the severity of the political problems plaguing the Legislative Branch of the United States government.
The political problems outlined in this discussion represent a short list of issues that We the People expect our national leaders to address and solve. So, get busy and JUST DO IT!
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
The terms amoral, unethical, unlawful, and anarchy represent a progression and degradation of societal behavior and cultural norms. It is my contention that virtually every segment of society, culture, and the population in general in the United States is currently in one or more of these stages of degradation. Politics now includes anarchy based on video releases showing that rioters have been hired by one party to disrupt campaign events of other parties. The idea that politics is a blood or combat sport demonstrates clearly that morality, ethics, and lawful behavior are the tactics of political losers. Politics is now amoral. Some businesses are amoral, unethical, and unlawful. Such businesses could be called godless immoral capitalists. These businesses constitute one of the left’s greatest arguments against capitalism. Some communities in our largest cities are characterized by anarchy at best and urban warfare at worst. The sexual assault environment on far too many of our nation’s college campuses could be termed sexual anarchy. Unfortunately, these problems have been a part of humanity from antiquity. Left to our “raw nature,” humans are at best amoral.
Adam Smith wrote that one of the primary functions of government is controlling the raw nature of man especially as it pertains to business and commercial ventures. Such control would extend to labor management relationships, business competition, and fair and equal access to capital and land. In spite of the fact that progressives view themselves as good and virtuous, they think that legal control of the “raw nature of man” should extend to economics and virtually all aspects of society and human interaction except sexuality and abortion. In their amoral view, the rest of humanity, including the religious, lacks virtue and sufficient intellect to control their “raw nature.” Since Biblical Christian intellect is clouded by a restrictive institutionalized moral code and outmoded view of human interactions and personal responsibility, our approach to controlling the “raw nature of Man” is not acceptable to progressives. This has been the view of philosophers on the left for at least two centuries.
Many on the left are members of various organized religious groups. Many of these groups are among what Christian conservatives term cultural Christianity. They often pick and choose what parts of the Bible they consider relevant today which contributes to the general amoral societal attitude. One prominent Democratic activist even stated that there should be a revolution in the Catholic Church because it was not sufficiently democratic. That is to say religion, Christianity, should become amoral and accept the current mores of society.
On the other hand, followers of Biblical Christianity understand that Christianity is a relationship with Christ as Lord and Savior for the purpose of individually sharing the love of Christ and serving the world in Christ’s name. Christianity is not a social club or a business. Biblical Christians understand that God’s word expressed in the Bible is our guide for service and morality. Biblical Christians understand that Jesus meant what he said in the following statement:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets, I have not come to abolish them but to fulfilled them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Mathew 5:17-19, NIV).
The teachings and laws of Christianity do not change as cultural mores change. This is the major difference between Biblical Christianity and cultural Christianity. It is the difference between Christian morality and ethics and the amoral nature of society today.
In Biblical Christianity, the concept of repentance, turning away from a lifestyle and associates that lead to temptation and violation of God’s laws, becomes a natural act of love through Christ. When a woman was caught in the act of adultery and brought before Jesus for condemnation, Jesus told her accusers that the one who is without sin should start the punishment of the woman. After her accusers all left, Jesus forgave her and admonished her to repent saying,
Go now and leave your life of sin (John 8:11b, NIV).
The woman did repent and soon became an important member of the early Christian church. Biblical Christians follow Christ and the teachings of His Word, the Bible.
Understanding that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to human behavior, many believe that the pace towards social and behavioral anarchy in our nation is increasing at an exponential rate. Mass media, telecommunications, the news media, pop music, the movie industry, the Internet, and social media all promote various levels of amoral, unethical, and unlawful behavior leading to many of the aspects of anarchy observed in our society today. Behavior that was once illegal is now legal. Language and Behavior that was once considered immoral is now accepted and commonplace. In addition, both our courts and the education system have condoned and in some cases promoted the increasing amoral nature of our culture. Moral relativism has become a hallmark of our culture, education system, and the legal system.
Progressives have long sought and promoted the decline in morality that is taking place in our country today. Two examples from the philosophical left include Marx and Bukharin. In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following regarding religion, especially Christianity:
Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.
In the 1983 publication, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, the editors discuss a treatise on historical materialism by Nikolai Bukharin, who wrote,
religion (especially Christianity) must be opposed actively since it would take too long for it to die out of its own accord (p. 415).
In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the philosophy behind legal education began to change in a similar manner. The concept that the manifest tenor of the Constitution, the original intent, was the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of statutes and the mention of God and Biblical precepts was eliminated as valid principles in understanding the law. Changes in the precepts and understanding of law started at the Harvard Law School and soon became the standard in the teaching and practice of law at all our universities and courts. The new amoral standard was that case law and precedent was more important than the manifest tenor of the Constitution. Two statements by legal scholars and jurists demonstrate this point. John Chipman Gray, summarized the concept by stating,
The law is a living thing with a continuous history, sloughing off the old, taking on the new.
Approximately 50 years later, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Supreme Court Justice from 1902-1932, offered a similar view of the law stating,
[Law is] simply an embodiment of the ends and purposes of society at a given point in its history, beliefs that have triumphed and nothing more.
In the 150 years since this concept was introduced, the Federal and State Courts have been used to alter the Original Intent or manifest tenor of the Constitution, set legal precedents, and overrule the will of We the People and the legislative process.
It is my opinion, that increasing the incivility and coarseness of our culture was part of the progressive plan to change the United States of America. Our nation is becoming more and more amoral, unethical, unlawful, and anarchistic. The role of Biblical Christianity and the Biblical family which teaches individual responsibility and accountability is incompatible with the progressive vision for a global society and global wealth redistribution. Progressives have a plan and a vision for our country. They feel that they are patriots seeking the best future for the United States of America and the world.
Progressives prefer an amoral society devoid of deep Christian influence.
The founders of our nation also had a plan. Our two founding documents the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America are the foundation of their plan. The 85 detailed essays on the Constitution known as The Federalist Papers were a commentary on the Constitution written in support of its ratification. Many conservatives feel that these three works delineate the best and brightest future for the United States of America and serve as a model for all who desire freedom for themselves and their country regardless of where they are in the world. We are also patriots.
The question is, which vision will prevail, the amoral progressive vision or the Founders’ vision? Every person in the United States of America has that critical choice to make in each and every election.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
The Trump Train carries a larger portion of the total conservative movement and forgotten Democrats. Looks like the track gs to 2024.
The Trump Train movement envisioned and then activated by Donald Trump may be what Tea Party founders wished they had formulated. In my opinion, the reason Donald Trump succeeded where others failed, is the fact that the Trump Train carries a larger portion of the total conservative movement and forgotten Democrats. The leaders of the Tea Party movement restricted their vision to balanced budgets, a smaller less intrusive government at all levels, and reestablishment of constitutional original intent rejecting social and religious conservatives. President Elect Trump asked evangelicals, labor oriented Reagan Democrats from the Rust Belt, and the Fly Over rural voters to climb aboard the Trump Train. Additionally, Trump’s call for economic reforms, lower taxes, and regulatory reform, incorporated significant elements of the Tea Party agenda. All of the other groups were left out or marginalized by the Tea Party movement, the Democrat party, and, during the last two cycles, the Republican Party.
For followers of Biblical Christianity, evangelicals, the fact that President Elect Trump asked them and important Catholic leaders to formulate religious advisory groups is extremely encouraging. He quickly demonstrated an understanding that religious liberty has been under attack by the courts at all levels, government at all levels, and the left’s educational dictatorship. Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees also encouraged the support of evangelicals. Consequently, he received the highest level of support from the evangelical communities of the last four Republican Presidential candidates. This masterfully crafted coalition on board the Trump Train ushered in the Trump Presidency.
Biblical Christians aboard the Trump Train will watch the actions of President Trump in his first hundred days, first year, and first two years with hope, prayers, and wary skepticism. In my opinion, President Trump is on a very short leash. My prayer is that he will only tug lightly on that leash and succeed beyond all our hopes and prayers.
SO FAR, THE TRUMP TRAIN HAS ENOUGH BELLS AND WHISTLES TO GET US TO 2024.
THEN IT WILL BE PENCE24 GIVES US 8 MORE. WHAT A FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM THAT WILL BE!
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
