Cyber-Gazette
Masonry ICF

Common Sense Too
........... Part1 ............
Introduction
Thank You TP

Common Sense Too
........... Part2 ............
Original Design
Convention
Two Party
Injustice
Unproper
Commerce
Bill of Rights
Recipe Tyranny
Expenditures

Common Sense Too
........... Part3 ............
Legacy
Spirit Taken
Protect Us
Traitors
Tolerance
Marriage
Taxation
Church State

Common Sense Too
........... Part4 ............
Gun Rights
Protect Life
Liberty
Tea Party

....American Spirit....

10th Amendment
Pledge Allegiance
Supreme Tyranny
Principles
Reagan Lives
E-mail KPR
Common Sense Too: Part 2
The Two Party Systems:


We must recognize the flaws in our constitution that allow such deception to flourish if there is any hope to restore our freedom. The first oversight that time has revealed is contained in Article 1 Section 5 of our constitution:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings....

Constitution of The United States of America

We have left the proceedings of congress up to the rules set forth by the majority of those who would be affected by those very same rules. This section allow for the rule of man to occur within a government that should be governed by the rule of law. If the constitution is designed to protect us from manís vices then how can men be trusted to set their own rules based on a majority vote? Common sense would warn you of misdeeds and mischief.

The results of this rule would seem insignificant if applied to a government limited to protecting our freedoms and securing our liberties. But when government has expanded into the Social fabric of our lives, the temptations for tyranny are too great for those with such desires.

To understand the damage this phrase has caused to our freedoms you must look at our two party form of government. Nowhere in the constitution will you find reference to this requirement. The politicians, only needing a simple majority to set their own rules on how to enact legislation, gather in groups to reach that goal. As an elected official, sent forth to congress to represent the electorate, you would find yourself locked out of the process as rules of conduct would only favor those in the majority.

You would then need to become a part of the Republican or Democratic Party, representing their interests, if you would want any hope of moving forward the concerns of your electorate. As the majority partyís interests hold more power over you than your electorateís interests, you must convince your electorate that their interests lay with the interest of the two parties. Lack of conformity to this reality would result in a lack of a voice in your government; a government that is supposed to represent you equally. As one can see, this two party system then becomes the norm. Instead of your representative taking your concerns to congress, he takes the concerns of his party to congress.

The competition between the two parties then becomes the vehicle for the rule of man over the rule of law. The platform of those who run for office should be the words contained in the constitution. We have the false impression that we are protected by the three branches of government. The reality is we only have two branches of government and they are the two parties controlling all three branches of government.

To have power, the Elected must guide their party to a position where they can control 51 percent of the votes. Each party will craft a platform that they believe will help them reach that goal based on a combination of issues and legislation. These platforms will then take precedents over the words contained in the constitution. The legislators will fight to fill the judicial branch with those of like mind so that their legislation will become laws despite words in the constitution that might seem to contradict their intent. Both parties would soon become party to this procedure as both would benefit from the power in turn.

Each party would enact legislation and modify their platforms as required to move to a position to get 51 percent of the vote instead of coming to congress dedicated to the constitution and the concerns of the electorate. As you can see with this one little phrase in our constitution, our government is transformed into the rule of man, for anyone elected to office dedicated to the rule of law would be outside of the majority that sets the rules and would become powerless.

We need a constitutional convention to set the rules of congress and ban the influence of the two party systems. We should have a no party form of government where the elected are dedicated to upholding the constitution and the rule of law, instead of being dedicated to the platforms of their parties. If the constitution is clear and concise and limited, how can major difference exist that require two parties.

Over the years our country has struggled with campaign finance reform and we have enacted many laws to try to combat the effects of political contributions. These reforms will never work as the two party systems is the vehicle for the need to buy influence. Money is required to get out the partyís message. Without satisfying the requirements of those giving the money, that money would be withheld and the party would lose the election. As power is the goal of the elected, and the elected are the ones to pass finance reform law, common sense would indicate that no reform will be successful. This would be like asking the fox to put up the fence to keep itself out of the chicken coup.

With congressís rules set in the constitution, each elected official would come to congress with equal power and the constituentís interests at heart. This would dilute the influence of campaign money. The primary would be used to reduce the field of many candidates down to the two highest vote getters. The general election would be a run off of these two candidates. No party affiliation would be designated or allowed as the constitution would be every candidateís platform.

The second ingredient to reduce influence in elections is a limited government. Those seeking influence are required to do so because of the government overreaching power on all aspects of our society. If the cost of political influence is less than the cost of government regulation, it only makes good business sense to pursue the less costly option. If influence would result in no savings because the constitution limits the power of the government, then the effects of influence will be reduced.