• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ban U.S. political parties?

Should all political parties be banned in the U.S.?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 23.3%

  • No

    Votes: 29 67.4%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 4 9.3%
  • Total voters
    43
Kal'Stang said:
No, there isn't. In fact the Constitution expressly prohibits the government from stopping such.

Amendment 1:

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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The only legal way to end such is to make a new Amendment to the Constitution. And frankly I would be opposed to such. Not because I like parties. I don't. I'm against them for much the same reasons that much of our FF's were against them. That's partly why I am an Independent. But by making such an Amendment you, and those that support it, would endanger my own right to association. Believe me, I'd love to get rid of political parties. But there is no way to do it via government without endangering everyone's Rights.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly: there are quite a few SCOTUS rulings that abridge freedom of association that don't involve an amendment.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Bob Corker is right about the GOP having become a cult.
All cult leaders and cult followers everywhere are the enemies of democracy and freedom.
Click to expand...

Add the democratic party to this and we'll be much closer to an agreement, we are not a democracy so that alone makes me question Bob's intellect.
 
lefty louie said:
Add the democratic party to this and we'll be much closer to an agreement, we are not a democracy so that alone makes me question Bob's intellect.
Click to expand...

For the record, the democracy part is mine. Technically it would have been more accurate to say "enemies of the democratic process," but of course that sounds much weaker.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
My view is that they run contrary to the major purpose of the Constitution: which was to make sure that no one branch of government could control all the others. Today we see that goal being eroded by the GOP.

An added benefit would be that candidates could campaign based on what they actually believed, rather than feel compelled to support the party line.
Click to expand...

Ban private money in politics and you might be onto something.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Nope, I'm perfectly fine with banning the Democratic party at the same time.
Click to expand...

In other words, the only party you believe in is the People's Democratic Socialist Party, of which you don't want to ban. It's amazing how close you remind me of the Tea Party.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Agreed, but that would definitely take a new amendment. Just designing an amendment is a minefield.
Click to expand...

But then, so would banning political parties due to freedom of association, and I think money in politics is a much more fundamental and pervasive problem.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Show me a quote. Plus the statement of organization that this party filed with the Federal Elections Commission. Otherwise you're just full of crap, as usual.
Click to expand...

I swear, you guys are totally amazing. Bernie Sanders said he is a Democratic Socialist. The DNC has just recently instated a rule that any candidate wishing to run for the Democratic nomination must declare that they are a Democrat, in an attempt to stifle Bernie (I guess one time wasn't enough).
 
DifferentDrummr said:
My view is that they run contrary to the major purpose of the Constitution: which was to make sure that no one branch of government could control all the others. Today we see that goal being eroded by the GOP.

An added benefit would be that candidates could campaign based on what they actually believed, rather than feel compelled to support the party line.
Click to expand...

Once you've addressed the significant Constitutional issues with the idea - it's blatantly unconstitutional - we might be able to discuss whether it has merit or not.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
My view is that they run contrary to the major purpose of the Constitution: which was to make sure that no one branch of government could control all the others. Today we see that goal being eroded by the GOP.

An added benefit would be that candidates could campaign based on what they actually believed, rather than feel compelled to support the party line.
Click to expand...

Yeahright.
Two people talking about how one wants this and will vote for that if the other does too are a political party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom