This may be considered a genuinely "stupid question" on my part but I would like someone with some knowledge in government to enlighten me on something.
Why are people who do not uphold the principles of our constitution allowed to run for public office in the first place?
It seems to me -- a person who is merely a housewife and basically a practical kind of person -- that if you do not believe in the established government of a particular nation you should not be allowed to run for a position to "represent" it at any level.
To my knowledge, (and I will admit my understanding of the law is limited to watching Raymond Burr as "Perry Mason") our constitution doesn't give provisions for Communists (as an example) to take office and use an elected position to bastardize the statues or ordinances (I hope that's the right terms) their office governs by to advance Communism.
My proposal is the following: That a law(?), ammendment(?), SCOTUS ruling (?), or some other provision be enacted to ensure that only candidates in agreement with the constitution be allowed to run for office. AND that officials already in office who are proven to be not in agreement with the constitution be removed from office and their position be filled by another qualified elected candidate.
Is this even possible?
And why do we allow people who are known Communists (for example) to run in the first place?
They cheat and they steal elections
Agreed. But my question is why are they even allowed to run. The fact that they are Communists (for example) means they don't agree with the constitution and should be an automatic disqualification.
Edited to add: As I said-- I am a practical person. We are attempting to lock the barn door AFTER the horse has been stolen. We need to pass some kind of provision to ensure that only candidates who are in agreement with the government the office they are applying for to represent can be eligible to run.
They petend that Socialism is different from Communism. I guess the whole purpose of this exercise is to let people realise for themselves that there is no difference.
If this is an exercise -- I think it's one that is doomed to fail.
From my viewpoint (and I am quite old -- so it's going to sound as if I am heaping criticism on the young because they're young -- but I promise you that isn't it...)
This present group of people are really very different than we were. We had our share of brats -- every generation does. BUT there just seems that there is a generalized -- how to put this? It's as if they're all spoiled rotten and think they are the center of the universe. So they have no respect for anyone.
We knew we had "rights". But we gave so many of them up to make our parents happy, or to fit in to social expectations. Despite what you may have read about the period of my youth, most kids weren't out protesting. They were either in Viet Nam, or in college getting a degree and hoping to make a better life for themselves.
This generation wants socialism because they actually believe the world owes them something. That attitude -- they're too old (and probably spoiled by mommy and daddy) to change.
So all this exercise seems to be doing is making the sane people suffer while trying to "educate" a group of kids that would be better served with a stint in boot camp. Don't laugh. In my day when brats got in trouble the judges gave them the choice of prison or enlistment. You'd be surprised how many of the brats came back from the army as model citizens.
The analogy of parents teaching their kids whats right and wrong is a good one. In our younger days if we ever got caught with a cigarette, many fathers would force the kid to smoke a whole lot of them, and then you could be sure that they would never smoke again.
Its pretty much the same with socialism. Show it down their throat heapfuls and let them understand what its really like and how painful it gets. Then we dont have to worry about this ideological evil ever affecting for generations to come.
Well said: "trying to 'educate' a group of kids that would be better served with a stint in boot camp."🐸
agree completely...the generation that came along after "cell phone" was invented, i think mid-1980's for general consumers, and the "windows" computer operating system with email in late 1980's i think, actually have NO IDEA about life in the real world...this certain demographic i described would have serious issues trying to navigate their lives WITHOUT these things, and in general were raised with these "electronic babysitters" instead of hands-on parenting...just imo...
Thank you for bringing this up. All I can think, is they are enabled by higher earthly powers, and the time is becoming at hand for justice.
I think you’re onto something and not such Debutante as username stands ;)
One of the reasons why Gen. Flynn and others were pushing “Take the oath” might be to make people realise that what they’re asking for isn’t a far-right thing. It’s a common sense.
Your question proves that people are asking themselves, like you did.
Perhaps the next step would be to make it a low (once most realise this isn’t any sophisticated or ridiculous ask).
Why did your generation raise children to be spoiled brats and communists?
t's a problem but America was formed from the ground up. The People come first and as a result anyone can run for office. It really is up to the people to protect our country. This is why John Adams is quoted as saying,
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The Athiests (Communists) will use our freedoms against us and it is up to us (The People) to stop them.
My sentiments exactly, but we have to protect our ability to act and respond when needed. We have to protect our ability to be moral and religious, and informed. We are in charge, but I don't think the culture of "it's not nice to discuss politics" is an accident. It intentionally prevents us from doing our job. We need to bring civics back to the schools, and require learning the Constitution.
Our SC won't accept a case on challenging their oaths. That's where the mechanism should exist, but they have prevented cases from going forward.
At the time our founding fathers set up the US government (Constitution) they never imagined Communism would take over. It didn’t even exist back then. Elected officials placing their hands on the Bible, pledging to uphold the US Constitution was thought to be enough. Most people don’t fear God anymore and some politicians don’t even use the Bible at swearing ins. When these people don’t uphold the Constitution nothing ever happens to them. Perhaps it’s time a law is made, if that’s even feasible.
Because, far left eggheads in academia have spent decades / century convincing their flocks that it would be Un-American / un-constitutional to weed ppl out based on whether or not they support / agree with the Constitution.
I actually understand this argument, but it flies right in the face of common sense.
And once we find out "who" they are (like communist, or some other person against the US) why can't we get them out of office? Especially if executive orders, laws, or SCOTUS has ruled that way? That is the question this Anon asks and I think-no matter what way these treasonous people get in-they should be taken out of office once we find out they are against America. This, simple ruling, would fix a lot of things I believe. I may be wrong but it wouldn't leave a person in office who is against America. I will leave with this-Ilhan Omar-it is not like they don't have EVIDENCE against her, that she is un-American, married her brother to stay in the US, and she is still in congress, WHY?
Because those we elected to enforce such ideals are corrupt and compromised.
They're not going to arrest themselves.
We're fighting the ruthless conspiracy that JFK spoke about.
We're fighting mass formation psychosis. Psychological warfare.
Can you tell me without a doubt who did 9/11?
Can you tell me without a doubt the reason we invaded all those ME countries?
Why can't you clearly answer the reasons for these world changing events & who's responsible without hesitation?
Why are they perverting young impressionable & innocent children, on SO MANY levels?
Why are they importing 3rd worlders into every nation?
Nothing is what it seems...
Communion with God is your only sanctuary... within yourself. Period.
u/#seriouspopcorn
"We're fighting the ruthless conspiracy that JFK spoke about."
Precisely.
Excellent idea, but our Founders already knew that the basis for a nation did not lie in its laws or constitutions, but in the fallibility of humans. Our Constitution was an attempt to rein in the worst aspects of human nature, that corrupt politicians were just as corrupt in the days of the Colonies as they were in the Senate of Ancient Rome.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights were intended to limit government to its necessary role of guarding our borders, encouraging commerce, and to wage war when the nation was under threat. What you see today (especially during the Biden years) was in direct opposition to those principles.
The original "American" government, based on our founding documents was replaced by an "overlay", orating corpse (corporation) following the Civil War coup. It wasn't the "South" that was "reconstructed", it was the government itself. Said overlay mirrors the original, but is based on legal (freemasonic) principles, now lawful ones.
As such, nothing has been, nor needed to be, "Constitutional" since 1871.
And this is why none of the Bill of Rights is actually enforced to this day....
The more you know...
u/Debutante the government that even your generation was taught about in school was in many ways dying before your grandparents were born.
You, and we, were taught History and Civics from British textbooks.
The Revolutionary War never truly ended, but looks like it is in the process of doing so now. Stay tuned.
John 16:33
2 Chronicles 7:14
We need prosecutions for not understanding their oath of office and for openly violating it.
Yes! Came here to say that.
The Brunson Brother's cases are attempting to target their failures:
u/MAGA_Patriot_1776 nicely explained (via Grok) :
When I did my study here in Oklahoma of elections, I found that state law specify that candidates must be associated with a party that have sufficient numbers of voters in prior elections.
I believe this portion related to candidates is Section 26-5-104. (Section 26-5 is the part related to candidates.) https://oksenate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/os26.pdf
At first this caused some me some concern, but as I thought about it, elections need to represent citizens that recognize their responsibilities to vote. The designated party helps the officials to assess the continuity of election participation. The statutes also cover party establishment in Section 1.
If interested, here's where I posted about my study some time ago. https://greatawakening.win/p/140Idy5o93/continuing-follow-up-11112021-mo/
Well, my take is we didn't get to where we are currently organically through happenstance of voting these shysters in.
To quote JFK:
It really has nothing to do with what we allow, it's the institutions that put these people up to run, and it keeps going up the chain from there. Sure, I reckon some start off with good intentions but once they get in the system it's hard to keep those intentions good.
Because of 1A, we do not have a system of abolishing political speech, political parties, nor political candidates.
This answer needs to be up at the top. But the fact that any shyster can run for office and it's up to us to choose, requires that we be a moral and religious people as well as educated.
It can wind up at the top if it gets enough upvotes. Unfortunately, that’s the only way things get noticed here.
Informed consent doesnt exist, when the adminstrative beaurocracy is jam packed full of said shysters and they run all the institutions. Gatekeepers on information. Most legal cotracts we enter into in the modern age dont provide informed consent, and are actually by definition fraudulent. The military truly is the only way. The picture gets clearer and clearer as time goes on.
Agree with your statement. Don’t let them run.
I'm curious why anything unconstitutional passes in this country. Shouldn't things be checked for constitutionality first? And if anything unconstitutional passes, shouldn't the people involved be hung from the highest branch? That's what I'm wondering.
That's SCOTUS's entire job.
There's some pretty good answers in this thread.
You've asked a very large question with answers that branch in many directions. I posit that an entire series of books could be written on the matter.
"The Great Awakening"
the principles the united States were founded upon included a Puritan work ethic, as well as a characterization of Christian religion in many of the 13 Colonies —> newly independent States 1776. The 1789 Constitution had enumerated powers such that there would be no taxation and spending by politicians for anything other than postal roads, an Army (“the general welfare”). So in the founders‘ mind, there was no need to make provisions to prevent collectivism or socialism. Even if elected, such politicians could not implement their policies. . But Alexander Hamilton argued that “general welfare” meant taxes could be raised to spend on anything that could support the general public.
With Franklin Roosevelt, the Great Depression & the “New Deal” came the idea that the “general welfare clause” meant taxes could be raised to pay for elderly people’s personal welfare (social security), and then under Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” spending could go to individuals to wipe out poverty.
So originally there was no possibility for collectivism and Communism, but the New Deal politicians did a “switcharoo” in the meaning of “general welfare” spending, the people voted for it, and now we are stuck with collectivists & Communists who believe that if they can get enough votes, then they have the right to tax us all to spend for whatever social engineering program they want. They did put the USA ahead of London in terms of global prominence.
The people voted for this new collectivist / social spending. Economic conditions were created whereby people clamored for government to be their savior, and philosophies of humanism + the teaching of evolution gradually took hold among many people.
We go through cycles, the 1st Great Awakening prepared colonists spiritually for independence from Britain. The 2nd Great Awakening prepared citizens spiritually to take on moral challenges of the growing republic, including the abolition of slavery.
With the 3rd Great Awakening we take on these woke globalist monopolist powers in league with the City of London bankers & their elite clubs.
Also, if it came to a point where there was a need for it, there would be no value in those provisions - for the people the paper-written provisions would ostensibly be guarding against would be the ones in charge of running things, which has certainly been accurate.
in the 1930s they probably would’ve done a constitutional amendment so your assessment rings true, well said
Our morals are used against us and to effectively invert our morals to those not as familiar with them. Once I saw it, I see it everywhere. You can recognize it in headlines of statements that sound reasonable but then the other side said them to support the exact opposite viewpoint.
Freedoms turned into weapons. Right to bear arms interpreted as arms for govt to protect the poor civilians instead of protecting an individual right to protect selves from govt. Freedom of religion used to shove acceptance of all religions down your throat and force religions to embrace lifestyles explicitly addressed as an abomination in the Bible.
Who is our Constitution meant to protect? I went through law school and was amazed at the fact that in 3 years the full document was not required to be read. And during a full year of Constitutional Law, you spend most of the time beyond Marbury v Madison learning how to interpret and twist the words and essentially be an activist. Nearly every professor was a liberal, and this was almost 20 years ago.
The spirit of the document needs to be properly understood. History, context, and appreciation for how special our country is. Not sure how you’d weed out everyone whose views are incongruent
This turned out to be a great discussion. But the answer dropped to the bottom of the thread. Our first amendment forbids us from screening people based on ideas before allowing them to participate in our government. That's why we need a moral compass and some education in order to keep our freedom.
why do these words exist?
Deception, Beguile, Fraud, Lie, Deceive, Discern, Honest, Enemy, Friend, Up, Down, Left, Right, Good, Evil and on and on exist?
The slant you are on will also lead to the same issues.
in reality in the USA we are taught there is some magical balance between good and evil. In reality humans can be both good and evil all rolled up in one person and when we allow people to have power and authority without foundational principles we get evil by default.
what I think the USA lost is we became arrogant and think we are the gods of the world all while the true gods of the world laugh at us and play with us like we are in an ant farm they control.
This is why USA to USA. Citizens should be first and that by the evil side right now is considered a whole bunch of slurs for a reason.
Just because someone is the "Leader" doesn't mean the grown men in the room who know better are going to follow his orders. Intelligent people know how to "follow orders" without actually following orders.
Lurk on these pages longer and you will realize that these traitors are SELECTED, not ELECTED and that thru our own negligence we have allowed the deep state to infiltrate our entire society. Judges, representatives the media and professors and even K thru 12 teachers have been installed to slowly overthrow and destroy the Constitution of the USA and our way of life. I believe that an entire counterculture has been propogated in the USA by the indoctrinated generations. We must reverse this and I believe that Trump is desperately trying.
You are absolutely correct here. Your platform could be to kill all black people. It doesn't matter. If the vote is rigged... you can say what ever you want.
Then, in political retrospect, they point to the fact the candidate said, "Kill all black people" and the majority elected him. He has the mandate.
Great system. Potent design. But only works in the dark. Lights are coming on. So in the future (tommorow?), what they say WILL matter. If votes count again and not rigged.
The voting public COULD make term limits unusable by becoming truly informed. If a larger % would actually research a candidate, and find him/her unacceptable and primary them out. But no, the thoughtless 'party line' voter just votes and later complains about how bad so and so is...
Debutante, excellent post and comment thread, imo...lots of good and thoughtful comments/information and historical references...will be pondering this throughout the day...
When they are sworn in they swear to “uphold the constitution” so theoretically they support the constitution.
They are just lying, as politicians do.
A true free press would be able to expose their actions so at least they don’t get reelected. Or prevent them from getting elected in the first place.
A few reasons. One it was established that no one in this country could be persecuted on account of their ideas. Blocking people from holding office because you don’t like their ideas would be undermining that principle. Add in a couple centuries of playing host to various religious and political groups that were chased out of their homelands on account of their ideas. You end up with really odd ideological groups. Many of which don’t quite align with the ideology that ultimately resulted in the Constitution.
Two. Humans have the nasty habit of viewing the same piece of literature or work. And drawing radically different definitions and interpretations from it. Regardless of whatever the authors may or may not have intended. And whatever the actual dictionary definitions of said words are. So In those people’s mind they aren’t violating the principles of the Constitution as they quite fundamentally interpret them differently. It’s partly why there’s a billion and a half Christian denominations now. They all started with the same book. But ended with radically different interpretations of said book. So you’ll need someone to establish an unquestionable definition of what ‘Constitutional Principles’ are. Then you’ll need to squash, likely with violence, any interpretation that doesn’t align with your preferred definition and interpretation.
Three. The America that ultimately birthed the Constitution is dead and buried. Arguably it died in the 1820s when we started expanding the right to vote in mass. Prior to the 1820s most of the country. Whites included could not vote. Add in a couple centuries of immigration from various regions. Further expansions of the franchise. Political and Social unrest. A Multitude of unresolved problems we want to pretend never existed. We end up with today. In fact at this point we’re probably more of a Representative Democracy in practice even if on paper we’re a Republic.
Four. Significantly large portions of The United States Population virtually worships Business and Commerce. One of the fundamentals purposes of a Business is to turn a profit. Apply that writ large for decades. Subsequently we have a class of exceptionally wealthy and connected people whose only real loyalty to is to their bank account. They’ve got no roots or connections to the country and states that birthed them. The Market doesn’t care about God, Country, or People and Culture. It cares about profits and nothing else. Thusly they have no qualms about mass importing foreigners who don’t give a rats ass about the Constitution. As long as they save on labor costs. They also don’t get a shit about subverting the processes so long as they benefit.
Lastly. Our election security has been a joke for decades. Even long before the machines came into it.
There’s multiple other factors playing into it. But those are some of the major ones.
We have Supreme Court justices that have trouble interpreting laws and one who can't define what a woman is. Military is the only way.
The military is fundamentally based on collectivism.
“Just following orders!”
They should be allowed to try it for real....
We would take ALL their income and savings of EVERYONE in the Country who wants Communism and Socialism and split it equally amongst themselves.
No leveraging Capitalism or Government programs that are supported on Capitalism taxes.
They would need to develop those programs that are based on socialism/communism and when the money ran out then they would see.
But the REAL reason they "want" socialism/communism is because they are COMPLETELY USELESS and LAZY and want to Steal from others who work their butts off.
PS. Fully agree we should have a LAW that Restricts those in office and removes those who cannot or will not follow the Constitution and hold with ardor the Precepts of the American culture.
Because the minute you allow the government to decide and can and cannot be voted for, you've thrown out the whole thing.
I'm going to blame the media. They were taken over by our enemies. Then again, the churches were fed lies and believed them rather than pushing back. Lots of blame to go around.
They protect their own interests against the Will of The People. We've been infiltrated from within and our voices silenced at the ballot box. Follow the money. Remember your Oath. Some never took the Oath. They protect their own. Duel citizenship..
Every politician who calls for anti-gun laws that violate the constitution is really calling to subvert the US constitution, and they should all be thrown out of office for that alone, based on constitutional treason and sedition laws.
Technically, the only way a politician can legally call for infringement's agains the second amendment is by calling for a change to the constitution- NOT by calling for new [unconstitutional] laws to subvert the constitution!
But, I digress. Technically, a lot of our politicians should legally not be allowed to hold political office. The problem is who is enforcing our laws. Who is that?
This would require a Constitutional Amendment. Two fascinating SCOTUS rulings, which basically protect government office holder's rights to hate this country and do believe we should all rot:
So - seems impossible without an amendment. Good luck getting the Commies to agree to that!
Our laws were designed for people of morals. Founder themselves have stated this.
If a paw did exist to stop this, what would that law look like?
Here is a good place to start:
Overview of the Communist Control Act of 1954
The Communist Control Act of 1954 was a significant piece of legislation in the United States that aimed to address the perceived threat of communism during the Cold War. Key Features
Legislative History
Context and Purpose
The Act was part of a broader effort to combat the spread of communism in the United States, particularly in the context of the Cold War. It was seen as a response to fears that communist organizations posed a "clear, present, and continuing danger" to the security of the nation.
JP Reacts had a video recently on “the illusion of democracy”, which I think explains a lot of this.