On Two-Party Systems, And Not

I mentioned yesterday in these pages that I would comment on the charade of the two-party system.  Herewith.

How could a two-party system have gotten this country into such a mess?  Wouldn’t they have been an effective check-and-balance to one another??

Answer B: One would have thought so.

Answer A: Because it is not a true two-party system.  Is not on a linear 'playing field,’ of ‘right’ and ‘left’, really.  But part of a pyramid, of power, with the same nest of vipers at the top, in their All-Seeing Eye compartment.  And as George Carlin might say: ‘And you ain’t in it.  You and I are not in it.’ 

How did our system of government get this way?:

Craftily, by subtle, Fabian-like moves towards a centralized form of government, away from the basic federal system of governance that this nation was founded on, and still is, essentially, if not any longer, largely, in practice.

Some background, and with a personal note.

At some point after I quit school, at the (Finals-truncated) end of my Junior year at university, and headed out in life to find lower-case truth and upper-case Truth, I got curious as to how something fundamental had changed in the nation’s understanding of its Constitution; enough so that I went up to UCLA’s Law School (as the nearest such school to me at the time) to do some checking in its Library stacks on past Supreme Court decisions.  It had specifically to do with my understanding of the Bill of Rights, as some examples of what the federal government was not being given the power to rule on, in our federal system of governance, and as doubly ‘checked’ on in the 9th and 10th Amendments to said B of R.1 

What I found out disturbed me.  As near as I could find out, the switch - from a federal form to a more centralized form of government - occurred around 1940, when a defendant took his case all the way to the Supreme Court, in a case involving his burning (I think it was; or not pledging allegiance to it) of the American flag as a form of ‘speech,’ which conflicted with his state’s laws regarding that sort of thing.  And the SCOTUS sided with him.  That is, ruled that the terms of the First Amendment - which says, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”  - that is to say, the federal government was to be one of limited and delegated powers; “few and defined,” in the rather authoritative words of the man to come to be known as the Father of the Constitution, James Madison2 - would now and henceforth apply from the federal government to the States, “or to the people”. 

How did they get away with this sleight-of-hand stuff??

It’s a complicated business, too detailed to go into here.  Suffice it to say that it involves the politics of the day - in the aftermath of FDR’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court, and that learned body’s seeing the writing on the wall - and a ‘principle’ called ‘incorporation,’ whereby the terms of the 14th Amendment supposedly turned the Constitution on its head, and ’incorporated’ all the terms of the B of R into its wording.  Now, the 14th Amendment in no way says, or was intended to say (notes of the amendment's authors available in the historical record), in effect, ‘The rights and powers formerly retained by the States or the people shall now apply from the federal government to the States’.  But our learned politicians, and lawyers, and the majority of the Supreme Court justices, have bought the sophistic 'incorporation' concept.  Hook, line, and sinker.  And they have continued to do so to this day (under another such 'principle,' called stare decisis - 'let the decision stand').  Whereas the truth of the matter is that our basic rights are secured for us, in a federal form of government, in the constitutions of our various states, functioning under the rule of law - i.e., constitutions; not under the rule of men, i.e., arbitrary law.  And so the idea that has developed, of ‘I know my rights,’ and application to the SCOTUS to rule on such, is part of the illusion that has been fashioned out of whole cloth.     

  

It is all moot now, anyway.  Because it’s time to go up a notch, in evolution.  And go for Unity.  As we ascend - figuratively and literally - to ‘the heavens’.

So, for example, a) the two major political parties of our day need to be dissolved, for having breached RICO statutes, in relation to the Usurper who was in the Oval Office for 8 years just past; and b)  a comprehensive audit of the nation’s extensive voting and electoral fraud will be for the record.  Not for the reality.

As a reminder.  Of how far off true ‘north’ a civilization can get.  When it loses its vision, of its higher Purpose.  Which is

to learn lessons from the experience.  As spiritual beings having a human experience.  And to move on from it all.

Not get stuck in the lower grades of said school.  Having to learn the same lessons over and over.  And over.  And over.  And……   

—

footnotes:

1 To wit:

   the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

   the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

2  in The Federalist Papers; an excellent primer on this whole subject . 

—-

And to complete this blog’s take on the two-party system: 

from YouTube: ‘Breaking News /Hannity/Sara Carter 2-7-2018 - HeydonMusicpage - Feb 7

(More on the Memo stuff, beginning now to finger Obama as having been clearly in the loop of the criminal activity going on)

..

Joe Vatter

2 hours ago (February 7)

I'm justwaiting for the day that Obama is erased from history and those years of his so called presidency eliminated from the books.  So what we have an 8yr blank spot on the records, we as true Americans can tell our children and grandchildren the truth.

REPLY

Stan Stanfield

1 second ago (February 8)

Indeed.  And for that record, let it be clear that both major political parties in this day and age KNEW that he was ineligible for the office before he got in there.  How do we know this?  Because both political parties tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and '08 alone, to get the 'natural born' citizen eligibility requirement for that particular federal office (and that particular office ONLY, indicating how important that requirement was for it) watered down, to make it easier for them both to put forward a wider pool of candidates - and they failed each time even to get their proposals for a constitutional amendment to that effect out of congressional committee, such was the sensitivity around this issue.  (For the record: the definition of a 'natural born' citizen, as understood by the constitutional Framers, according to considerable historical evidence, is a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens" thereof.  And that eligibility requirement for that particular office STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.)

So what did they do?  It's obvious what they did: They colluded, in an attempt to do an end-around on the Constitution and the American public on the matter.  They both need to be hauled into court on RICO-statute charges, and, when found guilty, fined, their authorities jailed, and both parties dissolved.  That's how serious this matter is.  And they know it.  That's why they are fighting so hard to keep any of this info getting out to the public; who need to wake up, and fast, as to what ALL is going on in their country.