An Inconvenient Document

The Declaration of Independence made our founding fathers' intentions clear. This was to be a Republic. Separate writings and the Pledge of Allegiance attest to this too so it's undeniably true. What that means is that all citizens are supposed to have fair representation. To fully understand what that means one has to read other writings. They were dead set against control by one political party.

Unfortunately we do have one-party control now because Democrats lock our elected Republican representatives out of the room when creating legislation and they steamroller their bills through the legislature. In fact, Democratic leaders in the legislative and executive branches declared openly that "we won ... we get to do it OUR way, period". Brazen? Oh yeah. Arrogant? Definitely. It's wrong in any regard but especially in the context of that apparently insignificant and pesky little document called The Declaration of Independence. That document declared this to be a Republic whose government is a government of, by and for ALL The People. How do Democrats square their behavior and principles with that founding document? Obviously they can't. It is, therefore, an Inconvenient Document and is clearly antithetical to their aims and even principles.

Then there's the Constitution. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that our founding fathers intended for this to be a two-party (at least) system. Not only was the Constitution constructed for that but for a balance of powers among the three branches of government. Clearly they sought BALANCE of power among parties and branches. What do you think they'd say to one party's leaders saying "we won ... we get to do it OUR way, period"? What would they say to some 40% of Americans not having their concerns voiced, much less debated, on the floor of the House or Senate? What would they say to a $1 Trillion spending bill being passed without a single representative in the House or Senate having time to read the bill, much less understand and digest it? It was passed not because it was a good bill (because no one can know without reading it) but for partisan, agenda-serving and special interest-serving reasons. This was a bill that began significant government reform AND committed record amounts of national debt, yet The People weren't given a chance to hear what was in it much less express their will. This bill was totally the will of one party. Well, doesn't that fly in the face of the Constitution and constitutional principles expressed by our founding fathers? How do Democrats square their behavior and principles with that founding document? Obviously they can't. It ALSO is, therefore, an Inconvenient Document and is clearly antithetical to their aims and even principles.

So much for fair representation. Remember what we told the Iraqis about forming their government ... that their government MUST include the interests of Sunni's, Shiites AND even the small minority Kurds? They were told that there must be fair and representative OUTCOMES in legislation too. We're good at telling other countries what's fair to their citizens but arrogant control prevails within the ruling party in America. Ruling party? Doesn't that sound kinda like a dictatorship or autocracy? Even if you're a Democrat, doesn't that sound like it's probably not good for our country?