Why do American Atheists Believe in the Constitution?

[Secular Heckler]

First of all, don't fuckin' yell at me. And I'm pretty solid on civics. Political science was at one time my minor in college.

Political science scholars are unwittingly awaiting the Demarcation of Law paradigm. However, because the discipline has enjoyed a surge of student enrollment, novices, and hobbyists during the advent of mass communications, they are awaiting an error code. If there were an error code it might be best to start with the partisan category errors. "Stop playing politics," is the absurd battle cry of the flustered corrupt politician. If “politics” is undesirable, or has limited applications, then the politicians should be inclined to secure a reliable definition, rather than allowing the decades-old rhetorical contradiction to continue confusing civics students into submissive partisan constituents.

Partisan category error occurs in the designations of the parties, as well. The designations do not correlate with the principles of organization. The Republican Party is not based on the principle of improving representation, and the Democratic Party is no where near interested in advancing to a true democracy. Although the parties seem to guard their stances on social issues, there is no obligation to maintain any position on any issue. The insightful political science scholars have described this phenomenon in every political publication and every night on political television about how the corrupt party used to be tolerable, moderate, cooperative, and in favor of the legislative provisions that are currently being debated.

Political science scholars are not scientists, and neither are any of the graduates, or hobbyists. They are theologians, numerologists, psychics, sophists, plagiarists, liars, and fear-mongers. They are the underwater basket weavers that our high school science teachers warned us about. They are not even trying to analyze the formulation of the checks and balances. In the proverbial box, they can only calculate ways of improving their favored partisan control of the erroneously commissioned three branches.

It is the fault of the political science scholars for having not already detected and revealed the miscalculations of the Three-part Separation Theory, inadequacies of the checks and balances, the amendment exception for the separation of government, and the general lack of research and development of government chartering systems. Political science scholars are indirectly responsible for the political chaos, and the media pundits are directly responsible for the social disorderliness, riots, bloodbaths, and civil war that they like to foretell that hides their failures in research and development for the discipline.

Secondly, you missed my point, that the checks and balances themselves require buy-in from the politicians to make it work.

That is a delusion derived from the favorable aspects of representative governing theory but nullified by the unidentified inadequacies of the three-branch government.

There is no uniparty, or bipartisan conspiracy to not enforce the Constitution. That is a delusion derived from not understanding that the checks and balances cannot be reliably constructed for a three-branch government. The evolution of the deployment of the three-branch government yields an obvious political strategy to populate the branches with politically aligned personnel to control the checks on power, and the erroneous system is not going to auto-correct itself, or publish an error code. The political parties are clearly in a civil war to control all three branches at all three levels of the government. That is what the simple three-branch government causes the politicians to do to fulfill the citizens' anticipation of political order and justice.