Can someone kindly answer the following questions?

[The Judged]

From where in the United States Constitution do members of organized political parties derive their right to exercise majority control over the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the United States government?

Where in the US Constitution is the authorization for members of any recognized political party to act in unison as a majority over all other elected officials in deciding US Senate or House rules?

Isn't the ability of political party members to change rules of the Senate or the House, without a 2/3rds vote, a way around constitutional representation for the American Public?

After all, in order to change the US Constitution there is a much more rigorous standard upon the these same elected officials.

Yet, in order to manipulate the government rules by which the government legislates and administrates, a simple majority prevails, and past precedent can be swept aside without the popular support of the American Public.

Shouldn't a 2/3rds majority be required for setting or setting aside any operational rules for both the US Senate and the House?

Robert's Rules of Order may be tried and tested, but when they may be manipulated to produce unconstitutional results in the unpopular and unauthorized control of the Congress by a political party, then they remain insufficient.

Or

Is this another case of "its not illegal?"

***************************

In my opinion, the US Constitution does not provide for political parties to have their members control the process and product of the federal government.

Also, I suggest that the US Senate and House of Representative may have rules that are in direct conflict with the US Constitution, and that maybe it is time that those rules be challenged in a court of law.

***************************

In my opinion, the American Public should be merely required to register to vote and to vote for candidates of their choice.

Once candidates are elected, the American Public should have unhindered access to their representatives for any political interests or considerations desired of that elected official.

It is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL injustice for the American Public to be made to have a political party stand between them and their government.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

[spindrifter]

1. Somewhere in an unnamed country

underground and secretly funded there is a crypt containing Article 00. This is the one dealing with Smoke and Mirrors.

You are absolutely right. The neocons have gotten on what is truly the bully pulpit and made most of us think that if you are in the Majority party you call abs-o-dam-lutely every shot. But it ain't tru.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

2. Parties as such are not prohibited

But permanent parties were never expected to arise or last long. Still, once people realize there's strength in numbers, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion.

[The Judged]

4. An "it's not illegal" answer. What about a Constitutional challenge?

Just because many things have never been declared illegal does not preclude the American Public from suggesting that they are, and for a federal judge to agree, based on the US Constitution.

e.g.: Identity theft was not illegal, nor even a concern until recent times. Now, identity theft is a federal crime.

[Burried News]

3. Great post. The same thing has been slowly dawning on me.

There need to be rules/laws/requirements that political parties must follow inherently democratic processes in their operation. I don't think the founding fathers ever saw political parties evolving into what we now have. Could they ever have intended that parties be the instument that rules? Freedom of association is one thing but an entity that is so powerful that it becomes an overwhelmimg instrument of tyranny much like the Bolshevik party in Russia or the Nazi party in Germany or the Fascist party in Italy, was never imagined by them as far as I know. I believe that if they could have imagined it they would have insisted on a multiparty system.

Your point seems very much at the core of our present difficulties.

[The Judged]

7. Thanks. I believe this is where we need to focus our efforts.

These high and almighty Republicans talk of principles, spreading Democracy, the US Constitution, American history, and Strict constitutional constructionists, but can they handle true Democracy and the true intentions of the framers of the US Constitution?

I doubt it.

Please tell a friend, if you really agree.

There are far greater minds than mine that are able to advance my theory.

[Dagaz]

5. Silly post

Of course there is no right to any powere but members of a party often vote as a block or mostly as a block to get tit for tat.

The party system came about around 1828 or so (look it up) when the first primaries occurred. The Democrats didn't like running several candidates against a single candidate of the opposition party. It made sense to not spread the votes around.

[The Judged]

8. Silly? What about majority rule in setting US Senate Rules?

You seem to overlook that what is loosely permitted is not Constitutionally permitted.

In order for a majority, of a political party, to be in control of US Senate Rules, there must be a constitutional authority for them to do so.

Never in the history of this great nation has that constitutional argument been won by a political party, IMO.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

10. There is constitutional authority for them to do so.

Article I Section 5, in relevant part: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings."

[The Judged]

11. I've been waiting for this response.

If a majority party shall have control by the rules in the Senate, then the rules imply that political party control is built into the rules of the Senate.

This opens the door for my original post, but the following question will suffice here:

What constitutional basis is there for a political party having such influence over Congress, or more specifically the rules of the US Senate?

Just because the US Senate is charged with setting rules for its operation, does not mean that those rules are not subject to constitutional conformity.

In post #9 in this thread there are links that are directly related to this topic.

[The Judged]

9. DANIEL B. JEFFS - PETITIONER VS. THE UNITED STATES - RESPONDENT

http://www.realdemocracy.com/newpetit.htm

also,

http://www.realdemocracy.com/petit6_0.htm

and

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26dec20011600/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/532bv.pdf

The above links illustrate that the challenge can be made.

However, they also illustrate the wrong way to go about it, IMO.

The petitioner was too broad in their challenge.

Here is another very telling link:

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9706-fusion.html

[dweller]

6. sounds like guestions for

Sen. Robert Byrd.

ask him.
dp

[Burried News]

12. I think you might like this article.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110405O.shtml
" Perhaps that's why, in a more recent discovery about the Bush officials, they turn out to have had a minimal interest in actually running things. Many have noted that the Administration had no plan for running Iraq. But it took the federal response, or lack of one, to Hurricane Katrina to show that the same might be true of the Administration's approach to the United States. In light of this new surmise, other puzzles melt away: a Clear Skies Act that dirties the skies, a Social Security plan to address a financial shortfall that deepened the problem and so forth. It has turned out that the Republican Party, which has long seen government as "the problem," not "the solution," is uninterested in governing. But if a "government" ceases to govern, can we call it a government? If a "supermarket" sells no food, can we call it a supermarket? We all keep referring to the "Bush Administration," yet administering seems to be the last thing on its mind.

These disclosures bring a new question to the fore: If the Bush outfit is not governing, what is it doing? The answer comes readily: It wishes to acquire, increase and consolidate the power of the Republican Party. At home the GOP is to become a "permanent majority for the future of this country," in the words of former Republican majority leader Tom DeLay, now also indicted, and abroad the country would be the imperial ruler of the globe."

GOP=PARTY BEFOR COUNRTY

[rodeodance]

13. it will take a long time to dismantle all the rules and regulations that

have been changed over the last few years-most of them without Congressional oversight (ie. EPA rules allowing industry to devoldge less information, etc etc etc)

[rodeodance]

14. they are governing--not necessarily thru laws--but by changing

regulatory rules and procedures.

[TahitiNut]

16. "might makes right" is the principle employed

... not only abroad but domestically as well. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that the stated agenda is solely in foreign policy.

[The Judged]

17. Is this political party control of Congressional rules constitutional?

That is the question.

When the US Senate employs rules that it is constitutionally allowed to decide, and those rules permit a breach of the US Constitution by granting a political party majority control over the rules of the US Senate, can those rules be challenged as unconstitutional?

Old Lefty Lawyer, where are you?

Can we have some legal review of this thread, including post #11?

Thank you in advance.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

18. Okay, this is my last post on this thread.

Frankly, your arguments get more and more circular and thus less and less coherent to me. Possibly your mind works on a much subtler level than mine and I do not understand your argument.

Here's the way I see it. We agree that the Constitution allows each chamber of Congress to make its own rules. You posit that one of these rules "grant(s) a political party majority control over the rules of the US Senate," but you do not point to the text of any such rule. You also posit that such rule results in a "breach of the US Constitution," but again you do not cite any particular phrase or clause of the Constitution that you allege has been breached.

Now it is arguably true that some rules may be overriden by a simple majority, but I am not aware, and you have not cited, anything to the effect that such a majority must necessarily come from the same political party. Thus, your initial premises may be faulty.

Now under our present system, two major parties have established themselves, although there are other minor parties (and at least one present Senator is an independent). The independents and members of the minor parties generally align themselves with one or the other major parties. Thus, for all practical purposes there are two factions in each chamber of Congress.

Now, if you have a group consisting of an odd number of people (and for this purpose I consider the Senate to have an odd number of people, since in the event of a 50-50 tie the VP is allowed a vote) and each member of such group must belong to either one faction or the other, then there are pretty much only two conceivable results -- either there is more of faction A or there is more of faction B. No other result is possible. Thus, if faction A wants a rule change and has enough people in it to effect a rule change, the rule change will occur; if faction A does not have enough people, then the rule change will not occur.

It was originally envisioned (see generally Federalist Paper 10) that the membership in such factions would shift from issue to issue, region to region, and time to time. Instead, members of some factions realized there was more to gain by voting as a bloc as much as they could. There is nothing in the Constitution that expressly prohibits this, and in fact is appears to be a protected free association under the First Amendment.

As for Post 11, I looked at the first two links, and it appears to be a petition that was filed in the Supreme Court by someone who, in my opinion, has only the most rudimentary knowledge of Constitutional law and Federal civil procedure. As for the third link, this was an 1156-page document which looked to me to be a Supreme Court Reporter, and unless someone points me to a specific page to look at, I can't take the time to wade through it.

Okay, I said earlier that this would be my last post on this thread, but I'm going to make an exception -- if you can cite the particular rule you have a complaint about, and the particular part of the Constitution you allege has been breached, then I may just address the problem again.

[TahitiNut]

15. That's part of why I'm an anti-partisan independent.

Political parties (which are corporations, after all) do more damage than good, imho.

[Burried News]

19. In what sense are they corporations? In some ways if they were

corporations there would be more constraints on them.

Frankly, I can see nothing else to compare them to.