I have an honest question

[Seeking Serenity]

If the Ukrainian government can democratically permanently ban 11 opposition parties (mostly pro-Russian parties, but also including some leftist and socialist parties) -- https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-law-bans-pro-russia-parties-zelenskiy-signs/31849737.html -- why can't we ban just ONE opposition party, a clear and present danger, in this country? The party that obstructs everything progressive, the party that stands for everything evil in this country, the party that can only win elections through cheating and general deceit, the party that has openly stated its raison d'etre is to oppose and block everything legitimate presidents want to do for the greater good of the nation.

Ukraine is a democracy and they did it. Why don't we??

[NJCher]

1. my opinion on this has always been

Instant runoff voting will take care of the republicans.

It would be much less controversial than banning a party.

However, IRV isn't so easy. They did it in NY and rolled out an entire education campaign to go with it.

[Seeking Serenity]

4. I don't see why we should even permit a traitorous party

A clear and present danger to the nation, an enemy of the state, the privilege of appearing on a ballot at all.

Just ban them, once and for all, and then we wouldn't have to worry about IRV.

[Ocelot II]

5. Start banning one political party, and pretty soon yours will be banned too.

The GOP thinks Democrats are enemies of the people and they'd love to ban us if they could.

[Seeking Serenity]

10. Maybe that's a reason to get out in front of them

They can't "ban us" if legally they no longer exist and thus could never attain power again.

[Ocelot II]

14. You might want to audit a course in constitutional law.

[iemanja]

23. Or read it at some point.

[brooklynite]

65. Right...because if you get rid of the Republican Party, all of its members will magically disappear

And when the America First Party gets someone elected President?

[iemanja]

7. That is exactly how the Trumpsters describe Democrats.

[Seeking Serenity]

12. We all know Trumpsters are traitorous troglodytes

Why should we care in the least what they think?

[Ocelot II]

2. Because the First Amendment to the Constitution includes the right

to freedom of association, as well as freedom of expression, which means, taken together, that a political party can't be banned because of the beliefs of its members.

[Seeking Serenity]

8. The first amendment doesn't give a criminal and terrorist organisation

The right to exist. As our president correctly stated, no amendment is absolute.

[Sympthsical]

11. Maybe we can set up a committee

Of public safety.

Should work out.

[TheProle]

42. +1 for the callout of Robespierre-ian short-sightedness

[Ocelot II]

13. Unless an organization or political party engages *solely* in unprotected activity,

any designation of the party as a terrorist organization would violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects most offensive speech, and the government can criminalize threats only if they fall under the "true threats" exception. Watts v. United States held that the government can prohibit statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individual; i.e., terroristic threats. So an individual could be prosecuted for making terroristic threats toward other individuals. But unless a political party does nothing but issue terroristic threats, the party can't be banned even if individual members can be prosecuted. Even the Nazi Party hasn't been banned in the U.S.

[tritsofme]

17. To quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, probably a meaningless name to you.

"if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

Some folks would really benefit from an intro civics class.

[Seeking Serenity]

18. I'm well aware of "Justice" O.W. Holmes, Jr.

From his majority opinion in Buck v. Bell: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Count me unimpressed.

[tritsofme]

26. Authoritarians, such as yourself, always have excuses for why things are different this time

And why their preferred tyranny is noble and just.

Nothing new under the sun.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

55. Tankies gotta tank

And sealion, apparently

[TomSlick]

3. It would be unconstitutional.

American's have a constitutional right to assembly and to hold whatever stupid opinions they wish.

It remains to be seen if the Constitution might be a suicide pact after all but at this point, I prefer to leave things to the free market place of ideas.

[iemanja]

6. JFC

We have a constitution. I don’t want to live in your one party autocracy.

[Seeking Serenity]

9. Autocracy?? Who said anything about an Autocracy?

Certainly not I.

Is Ukraine similarly an "autocracy?" I think not.

[iemanja]

15. You want to abolish the opposition

And impose one party rule. Trump and his lickspittle have the exact same goal.

You don’t just want the guilty punished. You want to strip away the rights of 40% of the country, to vote for the elected officials of their choice, despite the fact we have seen dozens of Republicans testify against the traitors. You aren’t opposed to traitors. You want to abolish the political opposition. Your proposal is autocratic and authoritarian.

[Seeking Serenity]

20. We're supplying Ukraine with billions of dollars with/for weapons

Because we're helping to defend democracy. And yet she can ban its opposition parties. Is Ukraine no longer a democracy? The gods forbid! If she is not, I may have to rethink my position.

[iemanja]

21. Ukraine has a young and unstable democracy.

Recently it had an authoritarian government. They are hardly a country to emulate, and they don’t have the same constitution. Every poster in this thread has explained the constitution prohibits your scheme. You’ve exposed yourself here. Quit digging.

[Seeking Serenity]

35. That's rather patronising to our Ukrainian allies, don't you think?

They take reasonable steps to protect their democracy, and no one says anything about it. I merely posit a similar course of action to protect our democracy, and point to an example of it being done, and it's all, Well, they're not like us, you see. We can't expect them to be as [virtuous, righteous, good, insert positive adjective here] as we are.

That sounds an awful lot like the colonisers' view of Africans from 150 years ago, "We cant expect them to be like us." Or a line from Janis Ian's song "Society's Child": "But, honey, he's not our kind."

[iemanja]

38. It's an accurate statement

It's not about virtue. Ukraine has had a rocky road due to historical circumstances. They have plenty of virtue. And your assumption that all democracies can act identically is absurd. Your proposition is one that will destroy our democracy--which is after all only a two party state, not a multi-party system like Ukraine. Your dressing up outlawing the opposition as about "democracy" is incredible. What you propose is closer to Putin's Russia than anything else.

You also failed to address my point about the Republicans who testified against Trump and his gang, but you want to outlaw them too.

[Seeking Serenity]

39. What about them? If they had any true honour and loyalty to country,

They'd have publicly renounced their participation in the R[acist] Party, and the evil for which it stands. But as it is, with them clinging still to the evil party, they'd need to (and should want to) join the Democratic Party.

[Seeking Serenity]

40. And even stronger democracies, like the UK,

Have banned political parties, such as the English Defence League, and have even banned parties from having uniforms, a la Sir Oswald Moseley's pathetic British Union of Facists.

[Cheezoholic]

16. This is exactly what is threatening some of the fledgling democracies in Europe

like Hungary. I believe this actually the path repukes are on. They don't have far to go to have enough states to call for a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the Constitution to enable them to do exactly what you are saying. It's a path for a dictator to assume power within a democracy by turning it into a single party democracy. It's a very dangerous road to go down and as others have said it will not pass constitutional muster in our country. Many of the European democracies don't have a constitution like ours and many are parliamentary based democracies.

You have to remember 70 million voters voted repuke in the last presidential election. You would immediately disenfranchise every one of those voters. Straight up 1st amendment violation.

Edit: And what iemanja posted.

[Raine]

19. One party rule ... NO thanks! 👎 nt

[Seeking Serenity]

22. It would be the DEMOCRATIC Party, I would remind. But it need not be a one-party rule

Our natural opposition parties might be the Green Party, the Democratic-Socialist of America, groups like that.

[Fla_Democrat]

29. And when those parties disagree with the one true party?

Would they be allowed to oppose, to thwart, to obstruct?

What would be your suggestion for the registered republicans? Once the r's were banned, what of the people who belong to that party? They would retire to a villa overlooking the coast? Maybe spend their days on a farm, frolicking in green fields while their betters make the policy, set the rules, pass the laws? What if they seek to form a new party, or enough join an existing approved party and guide it to their purpose? What then?

[Demsrule86]

32. So do you suppose the GOP would ever join any of those parties? But they could vote as

independents or does your plan include outlawing that. This is very undemocratic and not possible under our form of government.

[Demsrule86]

33. Your suggestion is to have a dictatorship...that is what one party rule is...no.

[brooklynite]

66. WHY do people imagine that conservative voters disappear if the Republican Party does?

[Polybius]

68. So zero conservative opposition?

Only left-wing and super left-wing? Not even Libertarians? No thanks!

[Seeking Serenity]

70. California doesn't have any meaningful opposition parties

I don't see anyone (other than conservatives) bemoaning that.

Check!

[Polybius]

78. But Republicans are allowed to run

They can win there, so long as they get the votes. That's all I ask for. If yu want the rest of the US to be like Cali, change people's minds.

[Dysfunctional]

24. Exactly how would the government go about legally banning a political party?

[Ocelot II]

25. There is no way to go about it legally.

Even the Nazi Party is legal.

[Seeking Serenity]

27. The Ukrainian parliament passed a bill last month and President Zelensky signed into law

Our Congress and president do the same.

And for those claiming it would be unconstitutional, our constitution is a living, evolving entity. The fourth amendment has seen new limitations attached to it over the years, for instance. Hell, we send men and women all over the world to fight and die all on a president's order, even though the constitution confers onto the Congress alone the power to declare war.

And I'm pretty sure the Congress passed the Communism Control Act in 1954 and signed by anti-president Dwight Eisenhower, banning the Communist Party in America. So it's not like it's not been done before.

[Ocelot II]

28. The Communism Control Act was passed at the height of the Red Scare

and was deemed unconstitutional by a federal court in 1973. Congress has repealed most provisions of the act, which has rarely been enforced.

[Seeking Serenity]

73. Even if the Court said such an act was "unconstitutional,"

As someone else here said on another thread, echoing the words of President Jackson, "The Court has made its ruling. Now let it enforce it."

[Demsrule86]

31. No we can't.

[Demsrule86]

30. We have a constitutional Republic and free speech...so no we can't.

[betsuni]

34. Huh? I'll put this in the "Why do/didn't Democrats allow/let Republicans do bad things?" file.

[Bucky]

36. You went to outlaw the Republican Party?

Sorry, that's not a serious question.

[Seeking Serenity]

37. Well, actually, it was/is

Here's the thing: I've been on this forum for 18 years (with a little interruption during the anti-president Bad Man's term, owing to personal issues), and the forum has always been dedicated to supporting the Democratic Party, and secondarily to railing against the R[acist] Party. Read any of the threads right now, and you'll see all kinds of posts calling the R's all kinds of invective, suggesting they share a prison cell together, people expressing their hatred -- deep, deep loathing -- of the R's, and generally telling the truth that we represent the vast majority of the people and musing about what all we could get done if we just had super-majorities in the Congress, along with the presidency. Boy, if it wasn't for those evil R's....

Well, I propose an answer to truly support the Democratic Party and to get the kinds of policies we all want and need -- and pointing to another democracy that has done just that -- "well, then everyone loses their minds!" (RIP, Heath Ledger)

If I didn't know better, I'd say it seems like people are more interested in the fight than actually accomplishing things. They don't want the R's defeated, they just want to call the R's assholes. That the war isn't meant to be won, it's meant to be continuous.

No, I want the R's defeated, beaten so thoroughly that they'd never want to poke their heads above the parapet again. I don't want to see ever again in what's remaining of my lifetime another R-dominated Congress, another anti-president.

(Exhales)

[Jedi Guy]

41. Thank you for asking this question.

I'm bookmarking this thread. The next time someone tells me there are no authoritarian tendencies on the left, all I need to do is provide the link to your thread. Very helpful.

Let's say that you got your way, even though it's absurd, just for the sake of argument. The Republican Party has been banned and is no more. But then the former Republicans organize into the Conservative Party of America or something similar, and they have the same platform. Are you going to ban that party, too? Will you just keep swinging that banhammer so that only a progressive party exists in America?

Do you not see how deeply screwed up and un-American your little utopia actually is? You're suggesting authoritarian tyranny with a straight face.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

43. Yeah! And then we can hold rallies!

Chant "Lock them up" about Republicans. Maybe get some cool hats made to show our loyalty to our new Democratic leaders, or drive around with big flags.

[Seeking Serenity]

48. That seems a little gauche and ostentatious, doesn't it? (N/t)

[AZSkiffyGeek]

50. I'm not the one who wants to crush our enemies beneath our heel...

[Iggo]

44. On second thought...

[MineralMan]

45. It's a question you should think about longer before posting.

If the Republican Party could be banned, why couldn't the Democratic Party be banned?

That is why we have a constitution and a constitutional democratic republic. Please think about it some more.

[tritsofme]

46. I think the problem is that this person has thought quite a bit, just prefers tyranny.

[MineralMan]

47. Perhaps. I don't know. I do know that not a lot of thought went into it.

[Seeking Serenity]

51. I take great exception to that

A) I do NOT prefer tyranny; thus, the desire to see the R[acist] Party and its supporters hobbled such that they can never even see power again and thereby preventing tyranny that they would certainly usher in.

B) I must object to the insinuation, on a Democratic Party forum, that the Democratic Party would be tyrannical. It seems like that's a violation of DU's TOS (not speaking ill of Democrats or the Democratic Party).

[tritsofme]

53. Laughable. The Democratic Party is not tyrannical, you are.

Please don’t try to mix the sick brand of totalitarianism you have been pushing here with the Democratic Party, they are incompatible.

Our principles are exactly the opposite of everything you have expressed in this thread.

[Seeking Serenity]

54. Oh, come on

There have been numerous people in this thread suggesting or saying out right that dispensing with the R[acist] Party would lead to tyranny. That's a clear indictment on those posters' part that they think the Democratic Party would turn tyrannical, a proposition I reject.

[tritsofme]

56. Come on yourself.

You are the only one here who seems to think the Democratic Party should embrace tyranny, in fact you are encouraging it, that’s what this entire thread is.

The Democratic Party embraces the First Amendment and political freedom as core tenets, please stop conflating us with your twisted totalitarian fantasies.

[Seeking Serenity]

58. I am NOT advocating the Democratic Party embrace tyranny

Everyone else is saying that if the Democratic Party had total power, the party would be tyrannical. That's not me saying it.

[tritsofme]

63. Of course you are, whether you choose to pretend or not.

You are advocating for a regime that takes power by banning its opposition, the Democratic Party would never participate in your totalitarian scheme, it is antithetical to our values.

You are standing alone, leave the Democratic Party out of it.

[EX500rider]

67. Can you name any single power states that weren't totalitarian?

[Seeking Serenity]

71. California

[EX500rider]

75. You mean the place where Ronald Reagan was once governor

[Seeking Serenity]

76. I mean the place that now has no meaningful opposition

To Democratic Party governance.

[EX500rider]

77. Should they do people can vote for whoever they want

They choose Democratic party that's good but they have a choice unlike what you want

[Caliman73]

49. I think that Conservatism is an outdated, illogical, and unhelpful ideology.

That said, I would NEVER support anything that bans the ideology or the party that supports the ideology.

I would like them to be discredited, discouraged, and thrown away into the dustbin of history, but again, that is different from using government power to legally ban them. Doing so goes against the foundations of democracy.

Ukraine is NOT the United States. While it may be a Democracy, it is a country that is less than 30 years old, which has been teetering on the edge of sinking back into being a puppet state for Russia for much of that time. They are doing what they think is needed to hold the country together. I happen to disagree with those steps, but I have no say in what Ukraine does. We are supplying weapons to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian aggression and trying to fold the country back into what Russia considers its empire. If Ukraine is able to beat Russia back, you better believe that NATO and the EU will have something to say about banning political parties if Ukraine wants to join the organizations.

You have an honest question, and it was answered similarly by the majority of the people who responded. It is now your choice as to accept the answer or not. If you do not accept the explanations provided, then perhaps you may need to rethink whether it was in fact an "honest question".

[ForgedCrank]

52. I'm not

sure if this a serious question or not.
Requirements for public office are pretty much etched in stone. You can't just make up extra rules to stop people you don't like from running for or holding office. They do that in Ukraine and Russia, not here. These rules are to protect us as much as it is to protect "them".

[Seeking Serenity]

57. All right. I surrender. Mea culpa

Clearly, based on the responses, the Democrats here are OK having an opposition party that is antithetical to everything we stand for as progressives and are ok with that party having total power in the country (but they would totally be upset about it). It's unconstitutional, despite our constitution being a living document that's supposed to evolve with the times. I get it.

It's a risk everyone is willing to take. Mea culpa.

[Polybius]

69. It's not a living document to many

Scalia called it a dead document.

[Seeking Serenity]

72. I care not one whit what dead Scalia had to say even as to the price of butter

Democratic leaders have correctly identified the constitution as a living, evolving document

[Polybius]

79. Many of us believe it to be dead as well

I like to call it the inanimate Constitution, meaning it's not dead nor is it living.

[The Protagonist]

59. Why not charge the Republican Party under the RICO Statute?

Instead of "banning" them, which would constitutionally be questionable, they could be charged as a criminal organization.

[Seeking Serenity]

61. Hey. There's an idea

And they're also the insurrection party. Surely there must a law prohibiting an insurrection party from fielding candidates. If not, let's pass one

[treestar]

60. They can't be a democracy if they can do that.

[Seeking Serenity]

62. What, Ukraine? We say they are.

That's why we have to send them weapons, to preserve democracy.

[treestar]

64. Then a somewhat flawed one

But mostly we are anti-Russian so that’s maybe the more likely reason for our help

[Cosmocat]

74. I would be satisfied if our media/county simply just labeled them for what they are

a party that is driven to remake this country into a chrisofascist, authoritarian idiocracy.

Stop with the both siderism, stop with enabling them.

Flat out say it and treat them as such.

Then if that is what the country wants, so be it.