Print Post Print Post

Should All Elected Officials Be Independents?

Written by | October 6th, 2009

In this previous post, I wrote about my feelings on political parties, and how our founders did not advocate political parties when they were creating our system of government.

For this post, I have decided to use a fictitious baseball game as an analogy. And, as with any game, we will need a set of rules; therefore, for our rule book, let’s use The United States Constitution, and all subsequent laws: 

For this game, we will need two teams – so let’s just say, we have Team Democrat and Team Republican. Now, all baseball games have an umpire behind home plate, whose function it is to be an objective observer, and to call balls and strikes, based on the rules of the game. For a moment, let’s think of each of our elected officials as a home plate umpire:

If each elected official was hired to simply, and objectively, called balls and strikes, based on our set of rules, would we be much better off as a country? Conversely, consider if the home plate umpire was in the tank for either Team Democrat or Team Republican – how would that game work out?

Every four to eight years, we end up with a President that is in favor of either Team Democrat or Team Republican, when in fact, we need them to be an objective official, that represents both teams, while utilizing the same set of rules, for both teams. The United States Constitution addresses the powers of The Congress, and the powers of The President, however, there is nothing in The Constitution that explains how Republican elected officials are to objectively represent a Democrat constituency of voters, and vice-versa for Democrat elected officials; therefore, these same principles should apply to all Federally elected officials; and, all with strict term limits, as with the President.

With Judges, there is an expectation for them to objectively interpret the law; and  law-enforcement is expected to objectively enforce the law; therefore, wouldn’t it only make sense that the law-makers begin to objectively create laws? And laws that benefit the entire team, instead of one team or the other? If we had elected officials, in Congress, acting as objective legislators, and utilizing The Constitution as their foundation for creating laws, then I would believe, the need for permanent (political parties) factions would diminish greatly. And, after all, aren’t we suppose to be The “United” States of America?

Like/Follow us
on Facebook

5 thoughts on “Should All Elected Officials Be Independents?

  1. Jackie

    Well said. This latest move by the Democrats meeting behind closed doors, once again just infuriates me. I think they should pass a law that says, there must be input into a bill from both parties. With just a few hand picked Democrats making the health care bill (without the expertise of the professionals in the health care and insurance industries) that leaves out "We the People".

  2. markross Post author

    Hi Jackie,

    TY! Yes, this health care fiasco is a perfect example of why the above needs to start applying to law-makers.

    Consider what I said in the post:

    Judges are expected to interpret laws objectively; law enforcement is expected to enforce the laws objectively; so then why aren't law-makers creating laws objectively?

    If you follow this logic, it is not hard to see why our founders were opposed to political parties! Political parties, intrinsically, represent one group of people, or the other. They are completely self-serving, disenfranchising, and should be considered unconstitutional! Also, lobbying groups that offer financial gain or special favors for legislation, should be punishable with jail sentences.

    As I said, in the above, we are suppose to be one team (Team USA) with one rule book (The United States Constitution); so when are our law-makers going to treat our country as one? I have said this many times, but it is worth repeating: If our law-makers were all forced to create laws, based strictly on The Constitution, with over site to make sure that is enforced, then the need for political parties would likely go away; as they would all then be following the same handbook. If they followed The Constitution, they would also likely have to get out of the business of trying to create services that the private sector is suppose to be offering, and get back to "managing" our country, as directed by The Constitution; which is what our tax-dollars are supposed to be paying them to do!

  3. Jackie

    All three branches of government are out of whack from what the Constitution set up. 

    The Executive branch should only include the President and his cabinet, not 30 some advisers.  Even if the czars aren't making policy, they have to be paid a salary, expenses of an office and staff.

    Congress was only suppose to meet at least once a year, not all year. I could be wrong, but I believe they all had regular jobs, like farmers, lawyers etc. They came and met, did their business, then went back to their jobs.

    The Judicial Branch is making law, as well, instead of just interpreting the law.

    Now-a-days, big money lobbyists, and special interest groups, own Washington; and just to run for President, is a billion $ business.

  4. Jackie

    Another thing I thought of from your last comment about people feeling disenfranchised when the opposite party is in office. . . . I have a friend in Florida who is agnostic and lives with an atheist.  She was sharing with me a couple of months ago about how disenfranchised she felt when Bush was in office (and she used that exact word).  She said she was always afraid to mention anything bad about Bush or mention anything about not being a Christian for fear of losing some of her clients. 

    That got me to see and realize that Christianity did seem to become such a big issue during his administration.  Before Bush, I don't remember knowing the religion of any previous President or even if they were Christians. 

    I want the President to be a Christian, but I'm not sure I feel that it needs to be so public, in that you are supposed to be a President to all the citizens of the United States.  I can see how non-Christians could feel real disenfranchised in that environment.  Because this President seems so anti-Christian, and I do feel disenfranchised.

  5. Jackie

    Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State” (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).

    This is where those declaring separation of church and state get it from.  It is a quote by Thomas Jefferson.  I don’t believe he meant what they have taken it to mean, but that it where it originated.  

    I agree with everything you said.  That was a great comment.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook