Constitutional America Party

by LHawes on February 20, 2017

The current method by which we choose our state and federal representatives is to listen to their views on the issues and then decide if they represent our views closely enough that we might support them in any given election. Their agenda(s) should be clear and we should expect them to represent those agendas after their election as they contemplate laws and issues on the local, state, and federal level.

We also know from past experience that a promise made during a campaign is not always a promise kept while serving office; that there are many instances where our representatives do not represent their constituents but sometimes their political donors or special interests. Their stated agenda during the campaign becomes only empty words thrown in the air only to get elected and not serve their constituents.

What would happen if a local, state, or federal representative had no agenda, or to be more specific, what if a representative were not allowed to have an agenda as they ran or as they served? How would we know what they thought or how they would act once in office? What could that possibly look like and how could that work within our current political system?

If our representatives were not allowed an agenda, where would their ideas thoughts and actions come from? How would they know how to vote on the issues? What if those ideas, thoughts and actions came directly from two sources 1) our Constitution and 2) the people they represented? What if our Constitution and the people were the source of every vote and decision made in the halls of government? How might that work?

We currently have vast technologies that allow communications quickly and accurately in ways previously unimaginable. If a representative were to employ these modern communication techniques, couldn’t he or she know very quickly the thoughts of their constituents? And couldn’t those thoughts be matched with our Constitution and then transformed into votes and decisions in whichever venue presented itself? And wouldn’t those votes most closely match the Constitution and the ideas and desires of those represented?

But who in today’s politics would forfeit their personal agenda to represent our Constitution and the people? Who would let go of their perceived power and adopt the Constitution and the people as their only measure?

Perhaps we need a new direction. Perhaps we need some new ideas. Perhaps we need a new political party that serves the exact purpose illustrated above. A political party whose purpose is to support and maintain the United States Constitution as the foundation and law of our land — a foundation that was followed. Any member of such a party (that) party, would pledge their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution’s sense of purpose and intent clearly and specifically. (And Every) The agenda of every member, candidate, office holder and volunteer of that party would be crystal clear – any specific agendas will support the US Constitution fully as well as “The People.” . (other than supporting our great Constitution and representing our people to that same end.)

If there were such a party, where would it get its direction? How would it decide issues and what would be the measure of those decisions? Perhaps this would be a good start. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

If an issue arose that could (it) not be measured as to its effect upon our ‘general welfare’? Or could it not be measured as to its effect upon our ‘common defense’? Does that law help establish justice? Does that bill insure domestic tranquility? Does this deliberation form our union in a more perfect way? What does liberty mean to our country?

All simple questions with no easy answers, but answers are not supposed to be easy. And answers are seldom relevant without the relevant question and context. Wouldn’t the questions above be the most relevant if our Constitution were indeed the law of our land and it was implemented consistently?

And what about the answers? We could ask, “Does either that new law or that old law serve the general welfare?” “Does that law provide for the common defense?” Once asked there are no absolute correct answers, but once asked there is a reason to find a relevant answer that best serves our Country and our Constitution. (and to allow that) These answers will remain within the confines and limitations of our Constitution – (and also) allowing for the definition of each term within our preamble to change with the times.

There are those who claim that the Constitution is a living breathing document and it should change with the times. Others claim it is strict in its writings and interpretations and should not be changed. If we were to continually define and re-define the terms within our preamble we could serve both purposes. We could leave the writings alone and allow the document to breathe by creating laws that serve today’s interpretation of ‘the general welfare’; that served today’s interpretation of ‘the common defense’; that served today’s interpretation of justice and domestic tranquility.

(So how to implement such a change in our thinking?) How might people adopt such a change? The primary political parties have shown over and over again that their deliberations and decisions on critical or important issues are often made without regard for the Constitution of the United States. It has been used when it is convenient in promoting a personal or special interest agenda.

(Today’s political parties have proven time and time again that The U.S. Constitution is at most an afterthought when deliberating today’s important issues or at least an excuse to promote a personal or special interests’ agenda. This is a provable, observable phenomenon. Today’s political parties have shown they have no interest in the Constitution other than when it serves their need instead of the Country’s.)

In regard to the above observations, it is time for a new direction. (It) Now is the time to start exploring and facing head on what is best for our country instead of what’s best for ourselves. Simple words repeated by many, but they require bold action and to that end we hereby propose the formation of a new political party, from here on known as The Constitutional Democracy Party (“CXL Dem”) whose purpose is to support, maintain, and defend the United States Constitution as the foundation and law of our land and It proposes to do so by creating and maintaining this political party that owes its allegiance to and pledges that its decisions and continued action be in compliance with the United States Constitution.

{ 0 comments }

“Kyle Pope, the editor in chief and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review penned an open letter to President-elect Donald Trump on behalf of the U.S. Press Corps setting some clear ground rules moving forward.

“In these final days before your inauguration, we thought it might be helpful to clarify how we see the relationship between your administration and the American press corps,” the letter starts. Before writing up the list of eight demands, Pope offered background on Trump’s relationship with the media over the course of his campaign and since winning the election.

“You’ve banned news organizations from covering you. You’ve taken to Twitter to taunt and threaten individual reporters and encouraged your supporters to do the same. You’ve advocated for looser libel laws and threatened numerous lawsuits of your own, none of which has materialized,” Pope wrote.

“But while you have every right to decide your ground rules for engaging with the press, we have some, too.”

 

Read More

{ 0 comments }

Edward Snowden wins Sam Adams award

by Carol on October 31, 2013

“Sam Adams Associates are proud to honor Mr. Snowden’s decision to heed his conscience and give priority to the Common Good over concerns about his own personal future. We are confident that others with similar moral fiber will follow his example in illuminating dark corners and exposing crimes that put our civil rights as free citizens in jeopardy…. Just as Private Manning and Julian Assange exposed criminality with documentary evidence, Mr. Snowden’s beacon of light has pierced a thick cloud of deception. And, again like them, he has been denied some of the freedoms that whistle blowers have every right to enjoy.

Read More

{ 0 comments }

Open Letter to Congress

by Frances on June 25, 2013

I wish I could take credit for writing this, but it came from a friend who is other worldly in his abilities. Please feel free to use all or parts in writing to your Congressional Representatives if you think it fits.

You know it’s probably unfair of us as a population to expect just because we elect someone that they instantly have gained ability. There you sit in Washington, there you sit in Sacramento, there you sit in Denver, there you sit, accomplishing very little more than you did when you won your high school presidency, accomplishing very little more, and it puzzles me why anyone would ever expect you to do better. It’s our fault, we put you in office, and it was unfair to expect that you actually know what you are doing. That was unfair, we’re sorry, we’re sorry that we put you in office and we’re sorry that you have to endure being in that office with the lack of knowledge that you have.  We do wish you would know, though, that you did have an effect and stop long enough to understand that you are capable of an adverse effect just as easily as you are capable of a good one. The difference in whether it’s going to be adverse or not is how versed you are in the subject manner and how thoughtful you are about it.  We’re sorry we thought you were capable of being thoughtful.  

Anyone that happens to be in political service, be cautious: we know you don’t know, you’re not fooling us.  We see you don’t have your clothing. We know that but it’s our fault because we put you there.

We expect more from you but we have no right to expect that. We do expect a lot from the position that you hold. We expect that whoever holds that position knows the effect it has and is serious enough to actually pay attention to making that effect be good for the people, not for themselves.  It’s probably unreasonable of us, the temptation to self-serve in those positions and the power that you wield make it seem ok. Be cautious, if you kill the golden goose, you don’t get much more than goose meat. You get one meal and that’s it.  

 

{ 0 comments }

Watch video: Essay Introduction

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Thom Hartmann:This is why it’s so difficult to change our country.

May 29, 2013

Over the weekend, nearly two million people took part in world-wide protests against Monsanto and genetically modified food. Despite demonstrations in over 400 cities, in 52 countries, there was hardly a peep about the event in the corporate media. Apparently, a Koch-Brothers-funded Tea Party march of 300 people is news-worthy… but two million protesters aren’t […]

Read the full article →

Humanity’s Brilliant Future

May 28, 2013
Read the full article →

Rise Up or Die May 20, 2013 by Chris Hedges, Truthdig

May 27, 2013

Joe Sacco and I spent two years reporting from the poorest pockets of the United States for our book “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt.” We went into our nation’s impoverished “sacrifice zones” — the first areas forced to kneel before the dictates of the marketplace — to show what happens when unfettered corporate capitalism […]

Read the full article →

Bob Dole to Chris Wallace “The Republican Party Needs to be Closed for Repairs”

May 27, 2013

WASHINGTON — Former Senate Majority Leader and ex-presidential candidate Bob Dole (R-Kan.) said Sunday that he is somewhat dismayed by the current state of Congress, where gridlock has prevented many legislative pushes from getting through. “It seems almost unreal that we can’t get together on a budget or legislation,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” […]

Read the full article →

Constitutional Con Artists-Letter by Alan Grayson

May 23, 2013

This week, House Republicans are putting forward a bill called the “Northern Route Approval Act.” This bill overrides the President’s authority to make decisions on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Whatever you think about the Keystone Pipeline, this bill is blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution provides for a legislative branch, which creates legislation — laws of general […]

Read the full article →

Minnesota Democrat And Minister: What ‘My Bible Says’ Isn’t Reason To Oppose Gay Marriage

May 10, 2013

Minnesota state Rep. Tim Faust (D) stood before his colleagues on Thursday and announced on the House floor that he would vote for a bill to legalize gay marriage in the state. The decision wasn’t simple for Faust, a Lutheran minister who represents a district that backed a failed amendment to ban gay marriage by […]

Read the full article →

More Brilliance From Jon Stewart

April 25, 2013

The Daily Show with Jon StewartGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Read the full article →

Anonymus Message To The World

April 20, 2013

  This is an Anonymous message from the Global revolution to politicians dictators and plutocrats all over the planet. Surprised by the global disobedience? Let us explain to you your delicate situation. Tens of Thousands of years ago, human beings began to evolve. Since then, our species has walked a dark and bloody road, which […]

Read the full article →