Dear
RWS and
18 and Life
Good point, that people have different beliefs and are going to disagree.
That brings up another MAJOR point:
Since people in the distinct parties have their OWN political beliefs and platforms,
why not separate taxes and responsibilities for policies,
and let each govern their own members and resources through their own party?
What legislative changes or agreements between parties are necessary
to establish equal respect for political beliefs, as we argue to separate
religious beliefs from govt and keep them private?
Because political beliefs inherently involve govt,
such as gun rights and voting rights,
right to marriage and right to prayer through public institutions,
right to life and right to health care, etc.,
these are harder to separate from govt.
So the other way to treat them equally is to endorse them all
and include them all in govt as an equal choice.
I propose a third house of Congress that
allows representation by party, for the purpose of conflict resolution,
and mediation to reach a consensus on policy -- where the parties
agree shall be public policy and govt jurisdiction, and where the
parties disagree that is delegated to states or parties as needed.
Is an Amendment to the Constitution needed for this?
Since there is no mention or Amendment involving political parties
and beliefs, can such an agreement also be done through parties.
Where any reform touch tax policies and state-federal relations,
each issue of law would require its own revisions through
the given legislative process.
I would also suggest separating the powers of President
and Vice President into Internal/Domestic and External/Foreign Affairs.
So we can elect 2-4 people for these positions, divide the work,
and possibly employ leaders from more than one party instead
of competing for the same office. That would take a Constitutional
Amendment to change the rules on positions and elections.
In general, I believe we need parties to be represented in a
Constitutional conference to review judicial powers and interpretation
of the Constitution, because there is irreconcilable disagreement.
We do not agree on political beliefs, so how do we manage those
differences and respect equal protection and representation of interests?
If we cannot agree on the above suggested solutions,
I suggest having an agreement or amendment
that conflicts concerning political beliefs should be
resolved by mediation and consensus to protect the
equal interests and beliefs of all citizens. If people involved
in a conflict agree to majority rule to decide the law for them,
then the current process can be used; but where people do
not agree to compromise their political beliefs for majority rule
or court ruling, then those citizens can invoke the right to
conflict resolution, mediation and consensus until the issue
is settled to the satisfaction of all parties to the conflict.
This is an extension of both Amendment 1, 10 and 14,
and also addresses issues of discrimination by creed under
the Civil Rights movement to extend equal protection of
the laws to public institutions. I also suggest extending
equal protections and responsibility for the laws to all
citizens and corporations, including political religious
nonprofit partisan business educational media etc.,
to be equally responsible for enforcing the
Bill of Rights, and 14th Amendments on equal protections,
and the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, and redressing
any grievances, objections, or complaints of abuse or
conflicts infringing or threatening equal protection of laws.
