Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

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.