My feelings are that as long as we live in a free market economic society with a federation that safe guards our most fundamental rights, then we are living free enough. But the democratic process for how politicians achieve their official status seems too lax. I feel that the two party system needs to be broken up, and monetary limits or taxes need to be placed on political campaigns to provide a fair chance for all parties, while insuring that we do not become overtaken by the rule of the mob (ie: the Democratic and Republican parties).
No - we could have a king who took power via the military.
But I'm not sure how limiting taxation or the two party system is going to end democracy; democracy which means the people vote in their legislators.
Every service member takes an oathe to protect and defend the constitution of our federal republic from all enemies, foreign and/or domestic. It would be impossible for a king or emperor to rise to power from the strength of our military so long as each and every service member stood for the unadulterated constitution from indoctrination to the grave.
In times of government corruption martial law is not only necessary to bring us back to the roots of our constitutional federalism, but must be desirable by all red blooded Americans who desire the liberties and safeties provided by the ink bled onto the pages we know as our US Constitution.
Lastly, the moment that a service member surrenders that oathe that they took during their indoctrination into the service, they become no more than enemies of the federal republic. The oathe we take is very serious and as real as the men who came before to make our freedoms more than possiblities, but living actualities perpetuated by a well established armed service and the amendments of which we serve to protect.
Remember, you cannot remain neutral on a moving train- thus the military will either serve to protect the constitution or it will perish with it.
I firmly believe that more mature regulations on the electorial process will provide an equal opportunity for all parties and the souls comprising thereof. Breaking up of a two party canididate system will undoubtedly resolve the problem of political government corruption and perpetuate a system in which the most qualified candidate for the job is at least heard amongst the mob we refer to as democracy.
The key is mandating that those in power, on both sides of the aisle, adhere to the Constitution and the limits it places on the federal government. If we were to hold our officials to this limited power, then there would be far less issues. The federal government should be limited by the enumerated powers expressed in the Constitution and additionally by the 10th Amendment. With less power in their hands, there would be less opportunity for deception, overspending and a reduction of our freedoms and liberty. If we were run as Constitutional Republic, as we were meant to be, we wouldn't need to worry as much about which party got in...instead, we don't run the federal government by the Constitution, and therefore, we have to worry REGARDLESS of which party is in power.
I don't really care who or what governs me, but I do care HOW I'm governed. It isn't the fact that a King can do anything he wants and will ALWAYS do bad things. It's that there are no rules to say he can't do bad things. And I got new for you.... Congress is slowly becoming that way too. Although made up of many people, they are consolidating power, either accidentally or on purpose in the Legislative branch. They are not subject to any law they create unless it is specifically stated so in the law, and when they are caught doing something criminal, they rarely go to jail or get punished at all besides sometimes.. SOMETIMES being forced to resign.
And point of fact: We do not and never did have a democracy. You do not vote for candidates for office unless you are part of the electorate. The most us normal citizens do is vote for our elector, who then votes any way he/she chooses. We are living in a Republic. We elect officials through a Representative Democracy, except we don't use it the right way. We should be chosing our electors more carefully. We should be finding out more about how THEY might vote and vote accordingly. Instead we listen to a thirty-second spot on TV and then decide if we want Republican or Democrat. We broke the system.
As to whether or not we NEED a democracy, my answer is: no. Britain functions just fine with a Queen and a parliment. A Constitutional Monarchy wouldn't be much different than what we have now. We'd just have one more celebrity family in the tabloids.... again... like Britain.
Whatever FORM of government we have must have the following: A document that spells out clearly what the leaders are supposed to do and anything NOT on that list is automatically assumed that they can't do. A Bill of Rights that spells out clearly what the citizens liberties AND responsibilities are. A way to remove a leader legally when they start misbehaving without having to wait until the next election (something like the "vote of no confidence" that Britain has for the PM, but better... more popular..less Parlimentary)
Provide those things and I don't really care what you call it.
by My Esoteric10 months ago
In reading Federalist Paper # 36 on Taxation, I found the jewel that speaks to one of the main differences between today's Republicans and Democrats"...; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy...
by Kathryn L Hill4 months ago
Democrats expect people to pull together to help one another in a collective way. They do not realize this system removes a certain amount of individual freedom through raising taxes. Republicans want to empower the...
by Doug Hughes5 years ago
The 14th AmendmentSection 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or...
by Reality Bytes4 years ago
Even though he stated he would veto the bill if it included the indefinite detention of Americans, Obama signed the NDAA bill in to law. Now an injunction is administered by a judge questioning the...
by Longhunter4 years ago
Now that Obama has already taken a "shot" at the Supreme Court, what do you think Obama's reaction will be if Obamacare is struck down?
by egiv7 years ago
And also to those who claim liberals don't argue with statistics:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opini … ref=global
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.