Dear Crixus: Some people on here don't think we the people have any say outside what the major political parties do with their power.
What do you think of this idea: what if we each contact our local precinct Democratic or Republican chairs, and ask for local conventions
to write up a special resolution to present to the major party candidates who win their nominations. Basically make a list of what we
will accept or not accept from them, regardless which of them wins nominations or office.
For example, regardless if they win or not, we will not accept to pay fines out of our income for not buying insurance.
Either the parties have to agree how to set up singlepayer care where it doesn't increase taxes or debt burden (such as reforming each
state prison system where funds saved there pay for health services for the general population instead of only paying for inmates and wards of the state),
or set up affordable care through free market choices, but not mandate costs to taxpayers without accountability in a way that ensures all the population is covered, and citizens are not penalized for choosing to invest in other means of providing health care that are still necessary if not more effective.
Regardless which of the party candidates wins nomination or office, we will not accept any Supreme Court Justices who do not recognize the difference between political beliefs and regular secular laws that don't require faith-based arguments. We the citizens demand justices and rulings that either satisfy both sides of conflicts between political beliefs,
and/or recognize the responsibility of the people and legislatures to write better policies that are neutral; and not take it upon themselves to make decisions favoring one side of a faith-based issue over the other, so as to discriminate on the basis of creed.
(Examples: the marriage issue, and whether political beliefs such as "right to marriage" or "right to health care" should be treated as inherent, as included under "religious freedom" which govt should NOT regulate without consent of the affected citizens, or as requiring Constitutional amendments to recognize at the same level that "right to bear arms" or "right to vote" are added in writing; the bathroom/gender orientation policy, whether or not people believe in treating internal gender identity as a behavior, creed, choice or inborn trait, and/or a faith-based decision that should remain up to individuals and not mandated by govt; and in general how to treat political beliefs equally including issues of "right to life" in comparison to "right to health care," "right to vote" with "states' rights of sovereignty unless expressly authorized to federal govt by written amendments," laws on arms, abortion, etc. written and passed by consensus instead of fear of politicized regulations or lack thereof that citizens don't consent to, etc.)
What if the citizens organize by party and co-sign a resolution demanding that whatever candidates win nominations or office, they agree to abide by Constitutional limits on govt and NOT pass any agenda constituting "political beliefs" based on their personal or partisan ideology, or abuse the judiciary or executive offices to push such agenda or discriminate, exclude or penalize the political beliefs and agenda of opposing parties or persons,
but only support neutral policies that the general public AGREES are in line with the duties of federal govt, are in the best interests of the public, and which do not discriminate on the basis of creed, political belief or party.
If people of one party or another disagree with a policy, it should be re-examined to resolve the inherent conflicts being protested, and not railroaded through by political bullying by coercion or exclusion, as is taking place now with the above issues; and/or set up a process to separate equal choices to fund alternatives if parties cannot agree based on their inherent political beliefs, creeds or ideologies that should be protected and represented equally and NOT be forced to change by govt.
Either act in the best interest of the public, including all parties and all beliefs and creeds, or appoint mediators to resolve conflicts and write better laws, through the respective state or federal legislatures, that REMOVE or RESOLVE the objectionable biases so all sides agree these are neutral and universally represent the public without exception or discrimination.
(For an example of articles passed by consensus of Congress, please see the Code of Ethics for Govt Service Public Law 96-303,
noting the article on putting Constitutional public duty above loyalty to parties, person or dept. ethics-commission.net)
So everyone can sign this resolution, that if we are going to support X Y Z candidates, we only agree for these leaders to endorse policies that meet Constitutional standards, and do not violate, establish nor exclude the religions, personal or political beliefs of any person or party over any other.
Last edited:
