The Political Rules of the Democratic Republic of America.
Laurie Thomas Vass, The Citizens Liberty Party News Network.
Introduction: Madison’s Political System of Elected Representation.
In his transformation of the American constitution from a natural rights republic, based on Jefferson’s Declaration, to the British social class mixed government, Madison had to modify the British political party system to fit his vision of rule by the virtuous natural aristocracy.
The British political system is based upon a multi-party parliamentary system of proportional representation. The British political parties compete for votes, based upon their expression of how their party will serve the national public purpose of the United Kingdom.
The political party that promotes the most popular version of Res Publica wins a plurality of elected representatives, and that political party gets to form the new British government.
As he did in failing to adopt the entire British judicial system, Madison also failed to incorporate key elements of the British parliamentary system into his new constitutional rules.
His omission locked the U. S. political system into a dead-end, permanent, two-party system that eventually devolved into an unelected elite tyranny, called the swamp.
The reason that Madison failed to state his vision of Res Publica in the constitution is that his system of politics was based upon social class competition between the natural aristocracy and the common citizens, not on the pursuit of Jefferson’s version of liberty as the American Res Publica.
“Res Publica” is the term used to describe the common cultural values that bind citizens into a national republic. A shared Res Publica is essential for creating the conditions of voluntary citizen obedience to the rule of law.
John Adams explained America’s first Res Publica of liberty as a “public spiritedness as the only Foundation of the Republic.”
“There must be a positive Passion for the public good…established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real liberty… Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasure, Passions and Interest.”
Madison substituted class competition between the elites and common citizens for Jefferson’s Res Publica of liberty.
As a historical outcome of Madison’s flaw, the Democrat socialists today share no common cultural values with other American citizens.
Translating the citizen’s consent of the governed into a public purpose of liberty was not relevant to Madison. Consequently, Madison’s system of elected representation left out a political party that defended and protected the natural rights of citizens.
As President John Adams wrote in a letter to Benjamin Stoddert, the two political parties that had come into existence had defined financial ends, not the Res Publica of American liberty.
“The reason,” noted Adams,
“is that we have no Americans in America. The Federalistists have been no more Americans than the anties…Jefferson had a party. Hamilton had a party, but the commonwealth had none.”
In other words, under Madison’s class conflict model of government, liberty would have required its own political party. Liberty would be seen as just another special interest, like the financial interests of the natural aristocracy.
For example, the reason that the Republican Party never pushed back against Obama’s transformation of America into a global socialist state is that Madison’s constitution did not require Republicans to defend liberty.
Under Madison’s two-class political system, the Republicans were only required to translate the political desires of the wealthy class into social and political policy, not to protect the citizen’s loss of fundamental natural rights to a totalitarian socialist ideology.
Over time, the corrupt special interest political system, called “the spoils” system, led the Republicans to collaborate with the Democrats in keeping the special interest gravy train on track.
Both parties agreed that the spoils system was ultimately essential to making the political system work, for them. They both agreed that whoever won an election, that the winner could distribute the spoils to their special interests.
In their collaboration, there is nothing incompatible between the socialist vision of global socialism, and the Republican vision of a global corporate oligarchy.
The collaboration works well, as long as it is the Republican corporate elite who make the global economic rules that direct the global financial rewards to themselves.
What is new in American politics is the compatibility between the goals of global socialism of Democrats, and the goals of Republicans in promoting global corporatism.
Under Madison, there is no political party that protects the sovereignty of the citizens, or the sovereignty of the nation, from a globalist ideology.
What has changed in American politics is that the Democrats have abandoned their historical role of protecting the social class interests of common citizens, at the same time that Republicans have abandoned American economic sovereignty.
What is different today is that neither of the political parties derive their authority from the consent of the governed because the deep state agents who operate and manage the swamp owe their allegiance to the global elites, not to the Res Publica of America.
As explained by Merrill Jensen, in his book, Articles of Confederation, what the anti-federalistist did not realize, upon the ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781, was that the Federalists intended to overthrow the natural rights republic.
In his review of Hamilton’s Federalist Papers, Richard Bernstein posed the basic political question addressed by Madison and Hamilton:
“Was it dangerous in a democratic government, to have important officers insulated from control by the people, or was it necessary to accept that risk in order to protect fundamental rights from infringement by popular passions or political intrigue?”
Madison understood, according to Marvin Meyers, in The Mind of the Founder, that man was a “social” animal moved by self-interest. His dilemma was how to re-write the rules so that
“…self-interested, self-governing men would be obliged to respect the rights of others and serve the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
Madison solved his dilemma by excluding the “howling masses” from the government, because the common citizens lacked “virtue.”
As Stuart Hill notes in Democratic Values and Technological Choice, Madison’s main concern was
“…how one faction would use political power to oppress another group.”
The key concern of Madison was that the majority of common citizens would form a political party that would oppress the minority of wealthy elites. This outcome was called “tyranny,” by Madison.
The solution, for Madison, was permanently loading the constitutional deck against common citizens. The true distinction of the American system, wrote Madison in Federalist #71,
“lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity in any share in the government.”
Madison shared the opinion of Jonathan Jackson that the main threat of tyranny originated in the excesses of democracy at the state level.
In his 1788 book, Thoughts Upon The Political Situation in the United States, Jackson wrote,
“A natural aristocracy that had to dominate public authority in order to prevent America from degenerating into a democratic licentiousness, into a government where the people would be directed by no rule but their own will and caprice…Tyranny by the people was the worst kind because it left few resources to the oppressed (the elites).”
In The Natural Rights Republic, Michael Zuckert calls Madison’s constitutional rules “institutional instrumentalism.” This description means that Madison created the institutional rules that are instrumental in effecting the distribution of power in the republic permanently to the natural aristocracy.
For Madison, the purpose of government is not to provide a mechanism of rights claims and reciprocation of trust.
Rather, Madison’s rules were the instruments to balance and check factional political power in order to insure that social elites, the natural leaders, who made important decisions on behalf of all society, were insulated from the tyranny that could be imposed by the people.
In Madison’s constitution, Jensen writes,
“…the federalists adopted a theory of the sovereignty of the people, in the name of the people, and erected a federalist government whose purpose was to thwart the will of the people in whose name they acted…”
In turn, Jensen explains that what the federalists failed to see, in 1787, was that the government that they had created could be captured by the socialists, in 2008.
As Gordon Wood has pointed out, in The Creation of the American Republic, not only did Madison’s scheme provide for a system dominated by
“…natural leaders who knew better than the people as a whole what was good for society,” but it also succeeded in removing the non-natural leaders from the political process.”
“In fact, the people did not actually participate in government any more…The American (Federalists) had taken the people out of the government altogether.”
Gouverneur Morris, a Federalist elite from New York, who helped Madison overthrow the Articles of Confederation, wrote, in 1774,
“that the British connection was the guarantee of the existing aristocratic order…after the revolution, they engaged with Federalists in other states in undoing the Articles of Confederation.”
As the natural rights populist, Centinel, asked about Madison’s arrangement,
“If the people are sovereign how does the opinion of citizens direct the policies of government?”
There is nothing in the Federalist constitution, noted Centinel, like the detailed definition of consent of citizens, as in the various state constitutions. Or, he could have added, like the safeguards against tyranny in the British political system.
As Sean Wilentz wrote, in The Rise of American Democracy,
“The people had no formal voice of their own in government. And, that was exactly how it was supposed to be – for once the electors had chosen their representatives, they ceded power, reserving none for themselves until the next election…The people, as a political entity, existed only on election day.”
As a result of this constitutional orientation, the role of the federalist government in economic policy matters became skewed towards issues like making certain that the bondholders of federalist debt were repaid at full face value for the bonds they had bought for pennies on the dollar.
As Elisha Douglass noted, in Rebels and Democrats,
“Hence, a double paradox: to preserve their own liberty, the unprivileged masses must be prevented from infringing on the privileged few; to maintain a government based on consent, a large proportion of the people must be deprived of the ability to extend or withhold consent.”
At a 1792 dinner party in New York, with Federalists, William Maclay, a U. S. Senator from Pennsylvania, was astonished at the bold, loud, boisterous elites bragging that they had pulled a fast one over the non-elites.
“the Federalists at the dinner party were boasting that they had “cheated the People” and established a form of Government over the people which none of them expected.”
“Cheating the people” was the intent of Madison’s two-party political system, that permanently damaged the natural rights of citizens.
Madison’s political logic was empowered by the logic of his two-party, two class, political competition, where no one, or no political party, represented the Res Publica of liberty in the new nation.
Part 1. The Logic of Madison’s First-Past-the-Post Election System.
In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke identified the basis of a legitimate government.
According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The elected leaders gain consent through the political system, like the one in Britain, that features competition among political parties for the most popular version of Res Publica.
The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, liberty, and property.
Locke wrote that if the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government.
In contrast to Locke’s consent of the governed, the Democrat socialists today have a different interpretation of the function of government.
Jim Newell, a Democrat socialist writer from Slate, writes,
“Among wide swaths of the Democratic coalition, there is an orthodoxy forming: The party’s purpose is to block and resist Trump at every turn, and through that process reinforce their own (socialist) priorities.”
Rather than consent of the governed, the Democrat’s philosophy is to “reinforce” their cultural values in extra-legal political action, called “resistance.”
Their goal is a totalitarian state that enforces socialist collectivist values, with an unelected propagandist, like Newell, as an elite leader of the socialist regime.
The logic of resistance is enabled by Madison’s flaw in embedding the two party political system. In the absence of the Res Publica of liberty, Madison’s “first-past-the-post, winner-take-all special interest corruption model, empowers the Democrats to override the will of the citizens.
In Madison’s first past the post model, one political party receives a majority of the vote, and that party gets to form the new government. In the winner-take-all system of electing candidates to office, the losers have a very limited role in governing.
In many cases in the U. S. political history, the rules enable a candidate with less than a majority to win an election.
For example, Abraham Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 even though he clearly lacked majority support, given the number of candidates in the race.
In 1860, four candidates competed for the presidency: Lincoln, a Republican; two Democrats, one from the northern wing of the party and one from the southern wing; and a member of the newly formed Constitutional Union Party, a southern party that wished to prevent the nation from dividing over the issue of slavery.
Votes were split among all four parties, and following Madison’s rules, a minority candidate lead the nation into the Civil War, whose genesis lay in the unresolved rules about slavery, in Madison’s constitution.
Madison’s idea for implementing the British social class political system was to create a U. S. Senate that functioned like the British House of Lords, and have a President that functioned like the British king.
Madison supported the resolution of John Dickson, a federalist delegate from Delaware, on the creation of the Senate. Dickson’s resolution stated that,
“we ought to carry it through such a refining process as will assimilate it as near as may be to the House of Lords in England.”
Madison realized that it had been the elite’s connection with British royalty, prior to the revolution, that had granted them their privileged status to run their colonies, and to speculate in lands and war bonds.
Madison presumed that the minority of wealthy elites would win elections because of the way he wrote the rules. First past the post was the logic of his system that ensured ongoing elite political control.
As Madison admitted, in his 1792 essay, A Candid State of Parties,
“…some of the supporters of the Constitution are openly or secretly attached to monarchy and aristocracy.”
As he noted, the Federalists had
“debauched themselves into a persuasion that mankind are incapable of governing themselves, and believed that government can only be carried on by the pageantry of rank, the influence of money and emoluments, and the terror of military force.”
As he so often did in his life, Madison played both sides of his argument. First, in 1787, he adopted the British class system in his constitution that served to empower the elites.
Next, in 1792, he criticized his own work because it created a political system based upon the influence of money and social class.
Madison used the ancient legal definition of rights as a grant of legal title of ownership from the King, or the Church, or some other powerful authority, to some group, like the Lords, or the commoners, or capitalists.
The Democrat party socialists, today, extend Madison’s concept of rights to mean that the elites in government grant rights to collectivist entities, who share grievances against the capitalist class.
In contrast to rights granted by the King, Jefferson and Locke wrote that natural rights are granted by God.
Madison’s frequent use of the term “faction” in the Federalist Papers to describe a social class is compatible with his collective expression of “the people” to describe where he thought the greatest danger to the stability of the republic lay.
“We the people” is a collectivist entity that is easily adapted to the socialist ideology of identity group interests.
The aristocratic American government created by Madison was stable as long as the Republicans (the well born), created economic growth.
After 2008, when the American economy no longer experienced economic growth, citizens became susceptible to the propaganda of socialism.
In Federalist Paper #57, Madison and Hamilton wrote that the most important barriers to the elevation of traitors to the public liberty were frequent elections and a “limitation of the term of appointments.”
Madison first promised that his system was based upon frequent elections and term limits. He then implemented the exact opposite system that featured no term limits for elected representatives and life-time tenure for Federalist judges.
If both political parties share a united federalist culture of values of perpetuating the spoils system, and if the elites can control the election apparatus in each district, with no fear of term limits, it does not matter from which district the elite is elected.
Once the elected representative arrives in Washington, D.C., the federalist values of the special interest spoils are all the same.
In America’s current two party special interest environment, the political elites are not bound by the same rules that are imposed upon the non-elites, and not subjected to feelings of cultural value disloyalty when they manipulate the rules for their own advantage.
Madison presumed that the Federalist representatives obtained the consent of the citizens in the original grant, of 1789, and then, after that, the common citizens granted the elites the permanent authority to make all the decisions.
Madison’s arrangement leaves citizens vulnerable to the tyranny of socialism, because the socialists will use the first past the post two party political mechanisms created by Madison to obtain power, and then use his constitutional institutional arrangement to never relinquish power.
Madison’s flawed constitution contains no remedy for this outcome. “Mob-rule” in the swamp and civil disorder is the consequence of the American constitution that was written to eliminate consent of the governed.
Part 2. The Consequences of Madison’s First-Past-the-Post Election System
On September 15, 1787, as soon as Madison’s constitution was published, George Mason stated that the plan was exceptionable and dangerous.
“As the proposing of amendments (in Article 5), is in both modes to depend in the first immediately and in the second ultimately on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive.”
Mason went on to say that Americans had been duly warned about the incipient aristocratic tyranny resulting from the work of the 51 elites who drafted the document, in secret.
“These gentlemen who will be elected senators, will fix themselves in the federalist town, and become citizens of that town more than of your state.”
“This government will commence in a moderate aristocracy,” Mason said.
“It is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarchy or a corrupt, oppressive aristocracy, it will most probably vitiate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other.”
Mason, and the other natural rights populists, mis-named as anti-federalistists, clearly forecast the creation of the modern swamp in D. C.
The so-called representative republic of Madison ended in 2008, in a corrupt, oppressive aristocracy, with an incipient potential for a socialist totalitarian state.
When Madison adopted part of the British class system, he truncated it to better fit the new American experience. Without the Res Publica of the British experience that limits tyranny, citizens in America do not have political vehicles to translate their values into political policy.
Under Madison’s flawed, truncated, two-party arrangement, given the absence of constitutional Res Publica of liberty, natural rights conservatives have no alternative, except to vote for candidates of the Republican Party.
The government that Madison overthrew, in 1787, was the voluntary economy of exchange of the Articles of Confederation, where common citizens could freely gain the value of their labor (property).
Madison replaced the Articles, based upon equal commercial exchanges, with government rules, where the elites dominated the terms of financial exchange with their unbalanced, and unchecked government power.
Their government power included a distorted federalist judicial system, erecting barriers to ballot access, campaign financing hurdles for non-elites, gerrymandering, exclusion from debates of minority parties, voter fraud, and media propaganda.
The consequence of Madison’s flawed arrangement is neither a representative republic based upon the rule of law nor a system of government, based on the on the natural rights of the consent of the governed.
As it does in usurping the sovereign power of state courts, the Federalist Government has steadily eroded state political rights to control their own election laws.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that both houses of all state legislatures had to be based on election districts that were relatively equal in population size, under the “one man, one vote” principle.
The Supreme Court appointed itself as judge of the election districts.
In 1972, the Court ruled that state legislatures had to redistrict every ten years based on census results. Agents of the Federalist government assumed unelected authority to pass judgment on the new districts.
Four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified to extend Federalist jurisdiction over the voting rights of different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:
Race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (15th Amendment, 1870).
On account of sex. (19th Amendment, 1920).
By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax” for federalist elections (24th Amendment, 1964).
Citizens who are eighteen years of age or older, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age” (26th Amendment, 1971).
In his reinterpretation of Locke and Jefferson, Madison assumed that the citizens agreed that the purpose of the government was to provide the initial consent to establish rules governing property rights and financial exchange.
Madison, and the 51 elites assembled in Philadelphia, assumed that market exchange relationships, based upon the right of private property, required the centralized power of the Federalist government to enforce the orderly mechanisms of exchange that would be uniform in all the states.
After the citizens provided this initial consent, their on-going consent of the governed would never be required again.
The government that Madison created served the needs of the special class interests of the natural aristocracy.
That group’s preferences become the surrogate national social welfare function of the new nation.
Under Obama, the government served a unified socialist ideology. In economic terms, the national social welfare that was maximized, under Obama, served the interests of their global socialist religion.
The term “We the People” serves the same purpose under Obama’s socialism, as the term serves in Article 2 of the Soviet Constitution of 1977, “the people (we the people), exercise state power through the vanguard Communist Party.”
In the soviet communist constitution of 1977, the expression of popular sovereignty was described as the unity of state power to achieve the highest welfare for all the citizens.
Under Obama, the Democrat Party becomes the vanguard political party, just like the Communist Party in Russia.
As a consequence of Madison’s two-party political arrangement, American society is equally divided between 65 million socialist voters who voted for Hillary, and the 63 million natural rights conservatives voters, who elected Donald Trump.
The Res Publica of natural rights and liberty of the 63 million voters who voted for Trump, can not be reconciled with the Res Publica of the 65 million socialists who voted the cause of global socialism.
The two values, individual liberty and collectivist social justice, are irreconcilably opposed and cannot co-exist.
Madison’s constitutional arrangement was designed to check and balance the social class interests of the few over the many, not to check and balance socialism versus freedom.
In 2008, when both political parties failed to fulfill their historical class purposes, citizens were left with no form of representation of their natural and civil rights.
Part 3. The Political Party and Election Rules of the Democratic Republic of America.
The allegiance to the rule of law in a natural rights republic is rooted in shared cultural customs and traditions of family, church, and community. The bonds of loyalty between citizens are strengthened when citizens join each other in common endeavors, like membership in a church.
As the shared cultural values are strengthened, voluntary obedience to the rule of law increases.
The civic associations, trade guilds, churches, and professional groups in America all have articles of incorporation and by-laws based upon ethical codes of behavior for their members.
These type of ethical codes and moral values are the same that undergird voluntary obedience to the rule of law when citizens form their new government, and leave the state of nature.
The civic clubs are self-governing, meaning that they enforce their own laws and rules upon their members, without calling upon the police power of the state. This is like the on-going consent that citizens agree to, after the new government has been formed.
The pluralism of multiple civic clubs in America functions to connect citizens to each other, and to bind them to a common set of national moral values, within their local communities.
The clubs function to provide the social institutional mechanism of social reciprocity because the members of each club agree to discharge their duties to other members, in the same way that citizens agree to discharge their duty to defend the other citizen’s natural rights.
It is an easy transition for citizens to apply their lessons and experience in managing their civic and community clubs to managing their affairs in government. The local community and civic groups provided the bonds of affiliation with other citizens.
The shared cultural values of natural rights is the basis of the natural rights constitution. Equality in natural rights leads to a constitution based upon majority rule.
Majority rule is the means to implement a government based upon the principle of equal rights of all, and special privileges for none.
Allegiance to the rule of law is promoted by citizens who have consented to make decisions by majority rule in their constitution.
Jefferson called this idea “self-government.”
In the Democratic Republic of America, political parties act as the mediating forum in the relationship between individual citizens, and the institutional structure of government.
The political parties act as the mechanism through which cultural values are transmitted to elected representatives into laws and rules.
The parties represent the connection between the practical knowledge of how government works and the cultural values of society. The parties answer Centinel’s question about the obvious flaw in Madison’s constitution about translating the will of the citizens into law.
In other words, there exists a public purpose in a having a fair political process, wherein citizens meet to make informed decisions, that is independent of the partisan fortunes of any particular political party or elected official.
The translation of the will of the citizens into laws, through voting on representatives, requires the police protection of the state to insure the integrity of the process.
How votes are cast and counted, and how votes are authenticated is too important a civic function to leave to the private special interests of partisan parties, as it currently exists today, in the swamp.
The mechanics of the voting process would be separated from the partisan interests of political parties in determining the outcome of the voting. The institution of government is conceived as a generic extension of the will of the citizens, and not as an independent arbitrator of special interest greed.
One of the key differences in viewing the institution of government as part of the will of citizens is to overcome one of Hamilton’s flaws that political transactions are just like economic transactions, and that by extension, government is like a private business.
Obama’s socialist transformation replaced the pluralism of multiple civic clubs with a unified, totalitarian cultural value of global socialism.
The purpose and intent of Obama’s relentless socialist propaganda media is to have citizens express loyalty and allegiance to the federalist government, as if the federalist government were functioning in the same capacity of creating citizen affiliations as the local community groups.
Madison’s Constitution did not address the issue of political parties because Madison assumed that the elites would always be the ruling class.
Madison did not want political parties to be formed because they would result in the majority party of common citizens exploiting the financial interests of the wealthy minority.
Madison’s term for political parties was “faction.” Madison’s term for majority exploitation was “tyranny.”
In the absence of constitutional Res Publica, Madison’s political rules devolved into the spoils system, where election winners rewarded the campaign contributors with lucrative government jobs and government contracts.
In the earlier era, the spoils system was loosely linked to the election system. What changed in America is that the spoils system, managed by the swamp, is no longer connected to the consent of the governed.
The global elites obtain their spoils without the burden of obtaining citizen consent.
The constitutional framework of the Democratic Republic of America returns government to Jefferson’s principles of “self-government,” based upon the political equality of all citizens.
The Democratic Republic Constitution strictly limits the domain of government power from infringing on the freedom and liberty of citizens to re-establish the primacy of civic associations, expressed in Jefferson’s Declaration.
Elections and the regulation of political parties in the Liberty States is based upon 4 fundamental principles:
- Fair Rules for National Elections.
- Fair Rules on the Function and Authority of the National Government.
- Fair Rules for Political Parties.
- Fair and Competitive Elections
Fair Rules for Federal Elections.
The Constitution establishes procedures for voter qualifications and voting procedures, in national elections.
The Constitution requires elected representatives to swear an oath of allegiance to defend the constitution and the rights of citizens, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Fair Rules on the Function and Authority of the National Government.
The Constitution establishes term limits of all elected representatives.
Senators serve four year terms and may succeed in office once, and no more than 10 years in a lifetime.
All House of Representatives serve two year terms, and no more than 4 terms total and no more than 10 years in a lifetime.
The Constitution of the Democratic Republic of America returns to the rule of electing one U. S. Senator, per state, whose constitutional mission is to protect the interests of citizens in their states from the threat of tyranny of the central government.
The Constitution establishes term limits of 10 years for all government employees and congressional staff.
The Constitution establishes a bright line rule for impeachment of elected federalist representatives, or appointed officials, initiated by either the national government, or in the legislatures of the states.
The Constitution establishes restrictions of the domain of power of the National Bank and national treasury to policies which inure to the exclusive benefit of U. S. citizens and to the benefit of the sovereign U. S. domestic economy.
Constitutional limits on the issuance of national debt and a constitutional requirement that the U. S. Department of the Treasury limit the national debt ceiling to a target debt level in any 10 year period, by approval of a majority of state legislatures.
The Constitution limits the National Congress to laws “expressly” enumerated in the Constitution that defend natural rights from the non-elected agents of government.
The Constitution requires that each law passed by the National Congress contain a preamble that justifies the enactment as necessary and proper to the defense of natural rights and the sovereignty of the Nation.
The Constitution mandates that before any law be made for raising taxes, the purpose for which any tax is to be raised will appear clearly to the preamble of the legislation stating the constitutional integrity of the tax.
For example, any revenue or tax bill would contain a preamble as styled:
“That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no bill or tax whose interests are outside the sovereign interests of the United States, or separate from, or independent of the government of the United States, ought to be enacted.”
Fair Rules for Political Parties.
The Constitution establishes the right of citizens in each state to recall nationally elected representatives by vote of the registered members of the parties that elected the elected representative.
The Constitution sets time limits between campaign announcements and elections. Parties select candidates for office in August for national election held in last weekend of October.
Voter ID cards are issued by the state Secretary of States. ID cards, along with other identification must be presented by a voter, at the voting booth.
Candidates running for office must clearly state in all public announcements their party affiliation, and that if elected, they will support their party platform.
Six weeks before a national election, a political party must publish their party platform and state how the platform supports the Res Publica of natural rights.
Fair and Competitive Elections.
The Constitution establishes House election districts by quantitative criteria, for periods of 10 years.
The Constitution delegates power to each State Secretary of State the authority to form state election commissions to oversee integrity of voter registration and voting process in each federalist election
Candidates for each party swear and affirm an oath to defend the stated principles of the party, if elected.
Political parties are registered by State Secretary of State, as non-profit corporations.
New political parties are certified by State Secretary of State by valid petition signed by registered members of the party equal to 10% of all registered voters in the state.
Parties are de-certified by Secretary of State in any national presidential election where the total votes cast by registered members for President is less than 10%.
Secretary of State issues voter ID card for all non-affiliated registered voters.
Multiple political parties compete for votes, and the party obtaining the plurality gets to form the new government.
When the state delegates from Mecklinburg County were sent to North Carolina’s first state constitutional convention, in 1776, the citizens who elected them gave the delegates specific instructions.
According to Charles Maddry, in The North Carolina Constitution of 1776,
“The delegates were instructed to endeavor to establish a free government under the authority of the people of North Carolina – a simple democracy, the fundamental principles of which should oppose everything leaning toward autocracy or power in the hands of the rich against the poor.”
The political party and election rules of the Democratic Republic of America re-claim those North Carolina principles of 1776, by implementing a political system based upon the Res Publica of the liberty of citizens, and not on Madison’s system of political spoils.