Tom, the Green Party has had a platform I can support. Government by, for, and of the people can be restored but it takes coalition building. It takes years to build a winning party. What process do you see as the way to construct a strong people's party?
Joan, as you noted elsewhere Jill Stein needs support in Congress. She doesn't have it now, and since she first ran I haven't seen her trying to get it.
Any new party that's not owned by the wealthy or by corporations has to have experienced people in legislative bodies.
I would have registered Green decades ago if the Party had had candidates in local and state races, and if some of these candidates had been winning.
Jennifer, I agree. I like the Green Party platform and Jill makes good sense. I don't think she will make a good candidate because she doesn't have a coalition built up in Congress or in the public. I am not sure she has a fire in the gut that Bernie has. Hillary has fire in her belly that could be strong enough for her to fight the Republican Congress. She reminds me of the female version of Lyndon Baines Johnson. He knew how to get things done and he had strong support in Congress. The Viet Nam War did him in.
I wish Elizabeth Warren wanted to run for POTUS. She has the charisma that Jill lacks.
Daniel, do you dislike Bernie so?
1) He has several times said he will do all he can to defeat Trump, and
2) The only adolescents are his supporters who won't vote Democratic.
Bert, that's why California took re-districting away from legislators, who have a personal stake in where they put district boundaries.
The Arizona legislature recently took their re-districting commission to court, claiming that their state constitution did not give voters the power to redraw legislative districts.
The judge said that in giving voters the direct initiative and referendum, their constitution gave voters all [emphasis added] legislative power and the voters may, if they choose, delegate lawmaking power to the legislature.
Bertold, I like your quote. American oligarchic leaders constructed "a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also: a group exercising such control". That was not the intent of our Founding Fathers, and I don't think the Founding Mothers wanted that either. My goodness, it has taken a long time for women to take on the role of a mentally healthy, mature adult.
Joan, a part of "constructed a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes" was the intent of our Founding Fathers.
Their intent required closing the 1787 Convention to the public and sealing for fifty years James Madison's records of what the delegates said and did.
In the Confederation Congress, which the 1787 Constitution abolished, representatives were limited to two successive terms. After two years out of the Congress they could run for election again.
As Ben Franklin so quaintly put it, after four years among the servants, representatives deserved some time among the masters.
I should know that the Founding Fathers did not intend a democracy, I wrote about that years ago. My vision for good government gets in the way of reality. I am glad you remind me of that.
The early draft of the Constitution defined a citizen as a white, male, landowner.
The Primacy of Property Rights and the American Founding
Private Ownership of Property Provides Real Power and Instills Self-Reliance and Self-Governance
A reading of the important founding documents, however, shows clearly that the Founders held property rights to be as important as other human rights. In fact, at times they insisted that the right to acquire and possess private property was in some ways the most important of individual rights.
Only one who ignores the history of the founding period could deny that the men of that era held the right to private property in high esteem. Indeed, it could be said that the central question of principle that animated the movements that led to independence and the framing of the Constitution concerned property rights; for it was a threat to property rights, in the form of taxation without representation, that initiated the crisis that led eventually to independence. Moreover, it was largely the undermining of property rights by state legislatures under the Articles of Confederation that prompted the framing of a new national constitution that would protect the individual right to property against infringement by national and state government power. (The state abuses of power during the 1780s included the cancellation of private debts either directly or indirectly, especially through deliberately inflationary policies and the emission of worthless paper money as legal tender.)
So insofar as the Founders made any distinction between property rights and other individual rights, they insisted that property rights were at least as important as personal rights. In Federalist 54, James Madison stated tersely: “Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals.”
David Upham is a doctoral candidate in politics at the University of Dallas. This article is adapted from the essay that won first prize in the 1997 Olive W. Garvey Fellowship program of the Independent Institute, Oakland, Calif.
Founding Fathers and the Vote
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."
James Madison, President of the United States.
But how would Americans "consent" to be governed? Who should vote? How should they vote? The founding fathers wrestled with these questions. They wondered about the rights of minorities. In their day, that meant worrying if the rights of property owners would be overrun by the votes of those who did not own land. James Madison described the problem this way:
'The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] ...may be overruled by a majority without property....'
Eventually, framers of the Constitution left the vote question to the states. In Article I Section 4, the Constitution says:
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations... .
Unfortunately, leaving election control to individual states led to unfair voting practices in the U.S. At first, white men with property were the only Americans routinely permitted to vote. President Andrew Jackson, champion of frontiersmen, helped advance the political rights of those who did not own property. By about 1860, most white men without property were enfranchised. But African Americans, women, Native Americans, non-English speakers and citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 had to fight for the right to vote in this country.
there is no way, over my dead body, that I would vote for Trump. Even if it means to reluctantly vote for Hillary.
You're in good company:
“I can’t believe I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, but I am,”
Former Republican senator Larry Pressler, now a Mormon Sunday School Teacher among other things. See The Hill for the full story. More quotes:
“This election is starting to sound like the German elections in [the late 1920s],” Pressler said. “This is a very dangerous national conversation we’re slipping into.”
"Mormons are the only religious group besides the Jews who have been ordered by the government to be extinguished, killed,”
I ask every sympathetic person I know, Please vote Hillary to block Trump, if nothing else.