Parties Not

political parties are unconstitutional by mark e. smith the constitution grants no right to political parties to exist. :::::::: true. read the constitution for yourself. there is absolutely no mention of political parties. there has been some discussion of whether or not the constitution guarantees our right to vote. the republicans seem to think there is no such right. the democrats concede that there might be such a right, but have historically been unwilling to defend and protect it as would be the case if they believed this right existed and they were to fulfill their oath of office to uphold and protect the constitution. article 1, section 2 of the constitution says that representatives shall be chosen "by the people." the fifteenth amendment starts out, "the right of citizens of the united states to vote....." the nineteenth amendment starts out, "the right of citizens of the united states to vote...." the twenty-fourth amendments starts out, "the right of citizens of the united states to vote..." the twenty-sixth amendment says, "the right of citizens of the united states.....to vote...." would congress have made four amendments specifically citing a constitutional right that did not exist? what happened to our right to vote is that it has been usurped by the political parties, which are, in and of themselves, unconstitutional as they have no constitutional right whatsoever to exist. because the people had the right to vote, greedy and unscrupulous power-seekers banded together as corporations called political parties in order to get candidates favorable to themselves elected. once elected, instead of representing the people who had elected them, they represented their political parties instead. they used their office to make their own rules and to govern rather than to represent. unfortunately, we only have those rights which we can defend. the right to freedom of religion, for example, is meaningless if you are born into and dependent upon a religious family that will punish you if you do not adhere to their religion. the right to freedom of the press is meaningless if the government owns and controls the media. our constitution guaranteed us the right to vote, but it is the political parties, in seeking to control how we vote, who have been attempting to deprive us of this right. political parties, like most corporations, are primarily concerned with their own power and profits. at this point in time the republican party controls the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, as well as the military, and all federal agencies. but they couldn't have done this without the consent of the democratic party. had al gore allowed democratic senators, who had a majority at the time, to sign the congressional black caucus petition to not certify the fraudulent florida electoral votes, bush could not have taken office without widespread civil unrest, if not an outright revolution. but the democrats saw no problem with the letting their republican colleagues run the country, and, in fact, frequently voted with them, so after

promising to ensure that our votes were counted in 2004, they once more refused to do so. our constitution gave us a republic, or a representative democracy, rather than a direct or participatory democracy. it was written by rich white males who never imagined that some day the descendants of slaves, and even females, might be allowed to vote. in no sense can a constitution that counted african-americans as 3/5 of a person, be considered to be democratic in the modern sense of the word. but there is an even bigger problem with our constitution. there are some supreme court justices who have debated the "original intent" of the framers. they cannot see the intent of the constitution spelled out anywhere within it. yet it is there. it is a mission statement, and is therefore placed right at the top of the document, and it is called the preamble. it says that the intent of the framers was to ordain and establish the constitution so as 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...." there can be no clearer statement of intent. the constitution was written and adopted for those specific purposes. yet in their search for absolute power, or tyranny, the supreme court nullified an election by the people in 2000 and installed an illegitimate president who was not elected and who then proceeded to stack the supreme court with more partisan justices. in doing so, the supreme court itself acted unconstitutionally. and why shouldn't they? there was nobody to oppose them. certainly not the democrats who voted to confirm those supreme court justices. as americans begin to wake up to some simple facts, such as that torture is not a family value, wars of aggression do not promote democracy, fires, no matter how hot, cannot cause buildings to collapse at free fall speed, fema blocked, instead of delivering aid to katrina victims, and that secret, unobservable vote tallies inside proprietary tabulating machines are unconstitutional because they deprive us of our guaranteed right to elect our representatives, there will be greater and greater demands for change. some countries have rejected our congressional system in favor of a parliamentarian system with proportional representation. but third parties would have little chance here so long as the ruling parties remained in power. personally, i think that the only answer is to scrap the constitution and institute a direct or participatory democracy rather than a representative one. representatives get too much power and it tends to corrupt them. and the political parties must be abolished because they are the ones controlling how our representatives vote, instead of us. corporations, whether business or political in nature, are not persons and have no constitutional rights. there is no mention of corporations in the constitution, and no rights granted them, because the colonies had just fought a revolution against a corporation, the british east india tea company, to which king george had granted unfair privileges while taxing the colonists severely. the question of whether our revolution was fought against king george or against his corporation, hinges upon whether the tea we dumped into boston harbor belonged to him or to his corporation. if he'd had a rebellious child, they might have said, "but daddy, you are the corporation."

when in the course of human events, representatives who are supposed to be elected by the people, take it upon themselves to deliberately misinterpret the constitution so as to deprive us of our right to elect them, and consistently ignore their obligation to represent us, it is time for us to throw the bums out and get ourselves a better system.