Forum Post: New Political Party Forming! The Justice Party
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 30, 2011, 9:57 p.m. EST by lkart5
(84)
from Red Bank, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
After what I have heard about this guy, we need to seriously look at this guy. This is absolutely not an endorsement of any type, but I am seriously happy to see people coming out of the woodwork who have been in positions of power only wanting to see an end to the institutionalized corruption in our two party system.
Yeah, he's someone to look into. I see he has criticized Bush & Obama very evenly. Not a partisan hack, it would appear. We'll see where this "Justice Party" goes.
Someone like this may help unify people for a change where people respect each other enough to come to the table when the people are the ones at stake.
Judge Dread could lead the party.
Camille Paglia certainly would approve.
Permit me the one obscure in-joke. She's the one high-flown critic to give Judge Dredd a glowing review:
It's still not know for certain if she was entirely serious or not.
Well, better Dredd than Judy.
Very interesting to see a real person stepping up. This could give people a chance to vote for a human being for President rather than a corporate tool.
"As Mayor, Anderson rose to nationwide prominence as a champion of several national and international causes, including climate protection, immigration reform, restorative criminal justice, GLBT rights, and an end to the "war on drugs". Before and after the invasion by the U.S. of Iraq in 2003, Anderson was a leading opponent of the invasion and occupation of Iraq and related human rights abuses. Anderson was the only mayor of a major U.S. city who advocated for the impeachment of President George W. Bush, which he did in many venues throughout the United States.
Anderson's work and advocacy led to local, national, and international recognition in numerous spheres, including being named by Business Week as one of the top twenty activists in the world on climate change, serving on the Newsweek Global Environmental Leadership Advisory Board, and being recognized by the Human Rights Campaign as one of the top ten straight advocates in the United States for GLBT equality. He has also received numerous awards for his work, including the EPA Climate Protection Award, the Sierra Club Distinguished Service Award, the Respect the Earth Planet Defender Award, the National Association of Hispanic Publications Presidential Award, The Drug Policy Alliance Richard J. Dennis Drugpeace Award, the Progressive Democrats of America Spine Award, the League of United Latin American Citizens Profile in Courage Award, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee Patriot Award, the Code Pink (Salt Lake City) Pink Star honor, the Morehouse University Gandhi, King, Ikeda Award, and the World Leadership Award for environmental programs.
Formerly a member of the Democratic Party, Anderson expressed his disappointment with that Party in 2011, stating “(t)he Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party." (wiki)
High Road for Human Rights
I will do more homework on this guy myself. Personally, I feel that this guy may peel off votes from another candidate on either side. People are genuinely disenchanted and want to see people prosecuted for the things that were done that sunk us. I am not ready to endorse yet, but should be soon, because any third party will strongly need a grass roots movement.
I'm past the pointing of voting for the "imagined" lesser of two evils: BO cured me of that particular delusion. There is little difference between the testicle-free Black Bush and any of the GOP Turds. My vote will go towards the best candidate, even if I have to write them in.
I'm not waiting for an election to "fix" things, because they already are.
Personally, I have been heavily pursuing Article V of the Constitution as our way to fix things. Elections rarely fix thing and merely put a band aid on things for the short term til another band aid is needed. A convention however is our ultimate right to alter and abolish the status quo. Take a look at this. http://www.articlevmeeting.info Give me some feedback.
All you need is 2/3 of both houses of congress (good luck with that) or the legislatures of 2/3 of the states to make an "application" (call a constitutional convention). Then you need 38 states (3/4) to ratify it. Historically, none of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.
Article Five of the United States Constitution
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
I'm not saying it isn't a worthy goal, just that the process is against it. Any amendment to eliminate political corruption must be passed by those benefiting from political corruption.
The applications from the states are in the congressional record. It is now at the point where we need to pressure Congress to uphold their responsibility under the law. We are entitled to a Convention. Take a look here. I have a page with a link to the photo copies of the applications in the Congressional record from Bill Walker's site. I am putting together information to support this.
http://www.articlevmeeting.info
The proof is there and the Congress has acted in violation of the law and we must publicize it and expose them to the rest of the population that does not identify with any movement. It is a basic breach of contract.
That's all we need. Another so-called third party barely capable of getting 1% of the vote. I'm not herein advocating working in the Democratic Party which would be the absolutely worst fate to befall OWS and I'm certainly for a realignment of American politics, but right now entering electoral politics would only reveal the weaknesses of OWS and do nothing to build the movement.
I agree, but if we can put the squeeze on them by threatening to peel off votes, maybe we can make a little bit of headway and start to influence policy. After policy influence comes the strength of the third parties so voters do not have to decide on red or blue.
The place to start is at the level of the state legislature or perhaps Congress, not the White House. Serious thought should be given to running for Sheriff, the only public office which, by virtue of its office, is mandated to bear arms.
It is amazing and you are right about that fact. The theme of the Occupy movement and also the Anonymous groups out there is disruption. I feel that the election process is a clear way to disrupt.
I think it is way, way, way too premature for the occupy movement to engage in electoral politics at this stage in its development. In so doing at this point it would either get co-opted by the Democrats or so just how pathetically weak it is. Once we can put 10 or 20 million people in the streets in this nation then maybe we might be ready to start, but just start thinking (but not doing) about entering the electoral arena. Entering the electoral arena with any smaller force would only reveal our weakness.
I am actually speaking not of endorsement of a candidate, but of disruption of the political system by spreading the votes around to third party candidates. It would just be a nice thorn in the side of the powers that may be just like bank transfer day was. I think an action like that could help to fire people up.
While supporting a Democrat would both give the illusion of power and co-opt and ultimately destroy the movement I can't think of anything that would show the weakness of the movement more than supporting any so called third party candidate. Perhaps once we are in a position to win at the Congressional level or at least at the level of the state legislature iit might make sense to have our own candidates. But running candidates right now would only be both a collosal waste of energy and because of that a waste of time. We need to build the movement and electoral politics will only distract us from that and weaken us.
[Removed]
I was impressed - but remember that a thrid party candidate has NEVER won -
and the wonderful war brought by the bush - nader duo
How about the fact that our country has the most discontent that it ever had. A third party would keep people in check a lot more, because they do not want to see a third party peel off votes like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader did. Then again, since we are at a crossroads, it may be a first time in history kind of thing.
Personally, I think that Americans Elect is too vague. They need a real forum so voters can debate with each other about where they want to see the country go with dialogue, not Congressional rankoring or bashing the other guy.
how about this model - THE TEA PARTY
they said - do it my way or i'll primary you -
IT WORKED
why shouldn't we do the same? we dont have the koch money BUT
THE CAPITAL OF DEMOCRACY IS THE VOTE
I wish it were that simple, but here is an idea for you. How about if we were to prove that we can legally circumvent our Federal government? They have to comply by law and I BELIEVE that we need to organize around this idea. http://www.articlevmeeting.info
It is our legal direct action to alter and abolish the institutionalized corruption in our system and prevent the takeover by those in positions of power that pull the strings on our Federal Government through lobbying.
[Removed]