If it were up to me a political party should be chartered, like a corporation, for a finite and nonrenewable period of twenty years. Once that term is up, you're history. Whether you've accomplished your goals or not.
After about that much time any ideology that purportedly birthed the party goes by the wayside and its entire purpose becomes self-perpetuation. Acquiring power for its own sake.
Yeah, there's just one little flaw in that plan. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. And I quote: "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."
Basically, you have no legal right to "abolish" any private group which people wish to voluntarily form up into.
Correct.
Political organizations, political advocacy, and political association are all entitled to Constitutional protections:
‘Core political speech consists of conduct and words that are intended to directly rally public support for a particular issue, position, or candidate. In one prominent case, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that core political speech involves any “interactive communication concerning political change.” Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 108 S. Ct. 1886, 100 L. Ed. 2d 425 (1988). Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates, the Supreme Court concluded, are forms of political expression integral to the system of government established by the federal Constitution. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1976). Thus, circulating handbooks and petitions, posting signs and placards, and making speeches and orations are all forms of core political speech, so long as they in some way address social issues, political positions, political parties, political candidates, government officials, or governmental activities.
The First Amendment elevates core political speech above all other forms of individual expression by prohibiting laws that regulate it unless the laws are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Known as “strict scrutiny” analysis, the application of this analysis by a court usually sounds the death knell for the law that is being challenged.’
Protection of Core Political Speech – Civil Rights
And:
‘Freedom of association as a concept [that] grew out of a series of cases in the 1950's and 1960's in which certain States were attempting to curb the activities of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In the first case, the Court unanimously set aside a contempt citation imposed after the organization refused to comply with a court order to produce a list of its members within the State. ''Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly.'' 198 ''[T]hese indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association,'' 199 may be abridged by governmental action either directly or indirectly, wrote Justice Harlan, and the State had failed to demonstrate a need for the lists which would outweigh the harm to associational rights which disclosure would produce.
Applying the concept in subsequent cases, the Court again held in Bates v. City of Little Rock, 200 that the disclosure of membership lists, because of the harm to be caused to ''the right of association,'' could only be compelled upon a showing of a subordinating interest; ruled in Shelton v. Tucker, 201 that while a State had a broad interest to inquire into the fitness of its school teachers, that interest did not justify a regulation requiring all teachers to list all organizations to which they had belonged within the previous five years; again struck down an effort to compel membership lists from the NAACP; 202 and overturned a state court order barring the NAACP from doing any business within the State because of alleged improprieties. 203 Certain of the activities condemned in the latter case, the Court said, were protected by the First Amendment and, while other actions might not have been, the State could not so infringe on the ''right of association'' by ousting the organization altogether. 204’
Annotation 12 - First Amendment - FindLaw
Consequently, neither the Federal government nor any state government may enact a measure making it illegal to belong the either the Democratic Party or Republican Party, or otherwise seek to ‘abolish’ the Democratic Party or Republican Party.
Any such measure would be invalidated by the courts.
