Lets VOTE for a different party... ANTI-INCUMBANT!!!

[DuncanONeil]

Some are of the position that the real problem is the Progressives. Which are in both parties!

The major problem with the Progressives is that they think the Constitution is an impediment to the proper kind of Government.

Oh yes! Too many of those in Congress act as if they are the nations NOBILITY. We had a Revolution to get away from that!!

I just heard that a majority of Congress, well thos that took the test, failed a basic civics text. Part of which include the rights enumerated in the First Amendment!

And yet not having term limits accross the board has turned being in office into yet another corupt money making scheme.

It doesnt seem to matter weather its a republican or a democrat in office the same shit keeps happening, so why not allways vote out the incumbant.

In fact ... I say vote the lot of them out!

Next election, if it says eaither republican or democrat on the ticket next to someone's name I WILL vote for someone not affiliated with eaither party or I will write in a canidate of my choosing.

[denuseri]

[B]
The major problem with the Progressives is that they think the Constitution is an impediment to the proper kind of Government.

Humm I seem to recall a certian group of people who felt that the Constitution needed some "elasticity" and should be changed or amended from time to time so that it wouldnt be inflexible, or become dated or an "impediment" to a proper kind of government.

What were they called again that group....oh yes thats right The Founding Fathers.

[steelish]

Humm I seem to recall a certian group of people who felt that the Constitution needed some "elasticity" and should be changed or amended from time to time so that it wouldnt be inflexible, or become dated or an "impediment" to a proper kind of government.

What were they called again that group....oh yes thats right The Founding Fathers.

The basic premise of the constitution still applies, even in today's fast-paced industrialized and highly technological environment. Adding and tweaking it a touch is one thing, to completely obliterate it another.

[DuncanONeil]

There is a major difference. The Founders believed in the people. Progressives do not!

For those who hold the Constitution of the United States in high regard and who are concerned about the fate of its principles in our contemporary practice of government, the modern state ought to receive significant attention. The reason for this is that the ideas that gave rise to what is today called "the administrative state" are fundamentally at odds with those that gave rise to our Constitution. In fact, the original Progressive-Era architects of the administrative state understood this quite clearly, as they made advocacy of this new approach to government an important part of their direct, open, comprehensive attack on the American Constitution.

As a practical matter, the modern state comes out of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, which launched a large bureaucracy and empowered it with broad governing authority. Also, as a practical matter, the agencies comprising the bureaucracy reside within the executive branch of our national government, but their powers transcend the traditional boundaries of executive power to include both legislative and judicial functions, and these powers are often exercised in a manner that is largely independent of presidential control and altogether independent of political control.
(November 20, 2007 The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government by Ronald J Pestritto, Ph.D.)http://www.heritage.org/research/thought/fp16.cfm

Humm I seem to recall a certian group of people who felt that the Constitution needed some "elasticity" and should be changed or amended from time to time so that it wouldnt be inflexible, or become dated or an "impediment" to a proper kind of government.

What were they called again that group....oh yes thats right The Founding Fathers.