Posted on 03/02/2021 2:17:47 PM PST by Jacquerie
Such is the GOP elite’s fear of Trump that some would rather deal with the loathsome and high criminal Hillary Clinton as president. This alone is proof enough of the existence of a single political party, albeit with two wings, left and right. I don’t recall who was the first to use the term “Uniparty,” but it is certainly accurate.
Political parties traditionally represent the common interests of their members, and to this end the two wings of the Uniparty have far more in common than differences. Their rhetoric often contrasts, but their mutual interests are on display. Witness the sixth year of Obamacare, out of control spending, executive and judicial tyranny. Both wings despise the Tea Party movement more than each other.
The Framers’ Constitution wisely divided power and provided checks that reached across the branches. Congress can deny appropriations, congress can override presidential vetoes, the senate can refuse consent to presidential nominees, presidents can be impeached, and so forth. Unfortunately, these necessary checks have dissolved into practical uselessness. Gone are the contesting institutional interests between the branches which the framers relied upon to prevent tyranny.
The common interests of the Uniparty are avarice and ambition, money and power. All else, even at the cost of the destruction of our economy, civil institutions, cities . . . everything else plays a minor role if any in their deliberations.
This is precisely the form of tyranny warned of by James Madison, in which all power resides in the hands of a backslapping few.
Conservatives have variously called for a real opposition party. Well, one exists. It is right in front of us. Its members have interests distinct from the Uniparty. They have sovereign powers, generally those which they did not grant to the government they created in 1788. They are fully capable of policing their environment, dealing with labor unions, taking care of their poor, etc. without the heavy hand of a distant, detached, and hostile Washington, DC.
If free government is to be restored, a competing interest must be reintroduced to an ever encroaching and centralizing government. That interest resides in the states.
There is nothing radical in returning the states to the senate. To do so means the reversal of tyranny and restoration of republican freedom. There is no substitute. The 17th Amendment must go.
Article V.
A Senate of the States is the natural opposing force to our Orwellian rulers. Talk of forming a so-called third party is ill-informed and pointless.
Post from March 2016.
Oh goodie. Another Article V thread.
I don’t like to go looking for trouble so I will leave well enough alone.
I just want to say that I don’t think Article V will do what you think it will do.
Do you understand the necessity of a Senate of the States?
We the People can make it happen.
Washington DC and the UniParty never will
Why do you think the Senate would survive any type of convention that tinkers with the constitution?
Would not the courts mandate that delegates be ‘representative of the people’ according to their respective state?
If the delegates were ‘representative of the people’, would they not quickly forego state boundaries and align with their faction?
If the factions are formed, would states not cease to exist?
If the states cease to exist, why would a Senate be necessary?
The House of Representatives can quickly become a Parliament, and the Speaker of the House becomes de facto Prime Minister.
Yikes. The answer to my question is “no.”
If not now, when?
This particular question doesn't make sense because the courts could not rule that an amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional as it would be by definition constitutional. Of course these days I wouldn't put it beyond the realm of possibility with the nonsense rulings we've been seeing lately.
Orwell’s 1984 is before our eyes yet people still put trust in elections and the institutions of Washington. Sheesh.
Great work, Jacquerie. Article V with narrow intent focusing solely on securing the integrity of the ballot box would change everything.
I meant as I explained in the post.
There it is again. Democrats say, “You can’t win elections any more! There’s no hope! Give up!”
Georgia Senate approves four election reform bills
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/georgia-senate-approves-four-election-reform-bills
Georgia House approves election reform legislation
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/georgia-house-approves-election-reform-legislation
Ariz. Braces For Forensic Election Audit
https://www.oann.com/ariz-braces-for-forensic-election-audit/
Washington DC and the UniParty never will
****************
The number of people on this site who still believe the GOP will somehow be miraculously reformed and lead us to national salvation amazes me. Despite a long and sordid history of stabbing its voters in the back, cycle after cycle, many people keep supporting the GOP. This must be some kind of “battered wife syndrome” thing at work.
Consider that the GOP House recently voted to allow Liz Cheney to keep her leadership position (#3 in the party) by the overwhelming vote of 145-61. That is how deeply compromised the GOP is.
For the last four years the GOP played Trump like a fiddle. They misled, deceived and resisted him. Their role in the Uniparty is permanent. You get it Mo. Why can’t more people see that?
Orwell’s 1984 is before our eyes yet people still put trust in elections and the institutions of Washington. Sheesh.
*************
It seems that Orwell was an optimist. He had no idea how bad the dystopian nightmare could really be.
I'm continually amazed at the hostility expressed toward the first of our first principles: self-government!
In other words, repeal the 17th Amendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Prior to that, Senators were appointed by the legislatures of their respective states.
As the first essential step of his education, Winston has to learn doublethink—a way of thinking that defies the law of contradiction. In Aristotle, the law of contradiction is the basis of all reasoning, the means of making sense of the world. It is the law that says that X and Y cannot be true at the same time if they’re mutually exclusive. For instance, if A is taller than B and B is taller than C, C cannot be taller than A. The law of contradiction means things like that.
In our time, the law of contradiction would mean that a governor, say, could not simultaneously hold that the COVID pandemic renders church services too dangerous to allow, and also that massive protest marches are fine. It would preclude a man from declaring himself a woman, or a woman declaring herself a man, as if one’s sex is simply a matter of what one wills it to be—and it would preclude others from viewing such claims as anything other than preposterous.
The law of contradiction also means that we can’t change the past. What we can know of the truth all resides in the past, because the present is fleeting and confusing and tomorrow has yet to come. The past, on the other hand, is complete. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas go so far as to say that changing the past—making what has been not to have been—is denied even to God. Because if something both happened and didn’t happen, no human understanding is possible. And God created us with the capacity for understanding.
And Article V opponents fear the states at a COS will . . . do what? On what basis do they base their fears? Whatever they are, they pale in comparison to WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.