• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans mount shock comeback, erase Democrats’ edge in eyes of Americans

haymarket said:
The nation of the United States of America is comprised of fifty states and those are in turn comprised by cities, town, villages and other smaller areas. Each can have their own government which has its own area of authority.
Click to expand...

There are many subdivisions, and the federal government grants a degree of autonomy to these subdivisions. But the federal government retains supremacy over every person, village, town, city, and state.
 
Green Man said:
There are many subdivisions, and the federal government grants a degree of autonomy to these subdivisions. But the federal government retains supremacy over every person, village, town, city, and state.
Click to expand...

And they are assuming every increasing power over these States and communities. The idea of local government responsible to the people most directly involved, is rapidly being eroded.
 
Grant said:
You absolutely nailed it. Everything began to change with the 17th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Without the 17th, politics as we know it today wouldn't exist. The government would be more mangable and the states more say in how they run their own state. It would be a curb on the central government which no longer exists. The best interests of the states would be at the forefront in the senate and not so much party agendas and politics.
 
Perotista said:
Without the 17th, politics as we know it today wouldn't exist. The government would be more mangable and the states more say in how they run their own state. It would be a curb on the central government which no longer exists. The best interests of the states would be at the forefront in the senate and not so much party agendas and politics.
Click to expand...

:agree: The 17th amendment was passed in 1913, when Democrats had the majority in the Senate, although both parties had spent years trying to get it passed. States lost a lost of their rights when this amendment was added, and critics have argued for its repeal ever since. Our Federal government has since grown by leaps and bounds, which was not what the Framers of our Constitution had in mind, IMO. In fact, the Federal government had very few duties listed in the Constitution...most power was given to the individual States prior to this, which makes sense.

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
 
Perotista said:
Without the 17th, politics as we know it today wouldn't exist. The government would be more mangable and the states more say in how they run their own state. It would be a curb on the central government which no longer exists. The best interests of the states would be at the forefront in the senate and not so much party agendas and politics.
Click to expand...

It might be in the states interest to pass an amendment clarifying their relationship with the federal government, namely, that the federal government was created by them to serve their interests. And declaring that any State may, if it determines that continued membership in the compact is no longer serving its interests, unilaterally withdraw from the compact.

Now obviously, there are many advantages to belonging to this compact, so states wouldn't leave over any trivial matter, but until the federal government realizes that any state can legally walk away it will always act in a tyrannical manner.
 
Green Man said:
It might be in the states interest to pass an amendment clarifying their relationship with the federal government, namely, that the federal government was created by them to serve their interests. And declaring that any State may, if it determines that continued membership in the compact is no longer serving its interests, unilaterally withdraw from the compact.

Now obviously, there are many advantages to belonging to this compact, so states wouldn't leave over any trivial matter, but until the federal government realizes that any state can legally walk away it will always act in a tyrannical manner.
Click to expand...
I get the feeling that many States are working behind the scenes on that problem now. A lot could depend on them succeeding.
 
Green Man said:
There are many subdivisions, and the federal government grants a degree of autonomy to these subdivisions. But the federal government retains supremacy over every person, village, town, city, and state.
Click to expand...

The Constitution says otherwise.
 
Green Man said:
It might be in the states interest to pass an amendment clarifying their relationship with the federal government, namely, that the federal government was created by them to serve their interests. And declaring that any State may, if it determines that continued membership in the compact is no longer serving its interests, unilaterally withdraw from the compact.

Now obviously, there are many advantages to belonging to this compact, so states wouldn't leave over any trivial matter, but until the federal government realizes that any state can legally walk away it will always act in a tyrannical manner.
Click to expand...

We went through that nonsense once before. Again - your side lost.
 
polgara said:
:agree: The 17th amendment was passed in 1913, when Democrats had the majority in the Senate, although both parties had spent years trying to get it passed. States lost a lost of their rights when this amendment was added, and critics have argued for its repeal ever since. Our Federal government has since grown by leaps and bounds, which was not what the Framers of our Constitution had in mind, IMO. In fact, the Federal government had very few duties listed in the Constitution...most power was given to the individual States prior to this, which makes sense.

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I totally agree.
 
Green Man said:
Where exactly does it say otherwise?
Click to expand...

Perhaps your copy is not broken down into Articles?

The first three deal with the various branches of the federal government. Article IV deals with the states. You may want to read that. Then we have the Tenth Amendment. You should read that also.
 
Last edited:
Green Man said:
Really, an amendment such as I described was already passed? What amendment number is it?
Click to expand...

I was describing the idea that you discussed of a state leaving the union if it becomes unhappy. That is the nonsense I was referring to.

here it is in your words

And declaring that any State may, if it determines that continued membership in the compact is no longer serving its interests, unilaterally withdraw from the compact
Click to expand...
.

That was tried already. It failed. Move on already. :doh:roll:

But if you want to insist on a new amendment, please show us public support for treason and you may have a chance at it passing.
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps your copy is not broken down into Articles?

Th3 first three deal with the various branches of the federal government. Article IV deals with the states. You may want to read that. Then we have the Tenth Amendment. You should read that also.
Click to expand...

And which of those sections you cited makes any state able to legally violate federal law? Are you unfamiliar with the supremacy clause. The federal government makes the supreme law of the land.
 
Green Man said:
And which of those sections you cited makes any state able to legally violate federal law?
Click to expand...

That is a really nonsensical question. Why should any level of any government be allowed to violate the law?
 
haymarket said:
I was describing the idea that you discussed of a state leaving the union if it becomes unhappy. That is the nonsense I was referring to.

here it is in your words

And declaring that any State may, if it determines that continued membership in the compact is no longer serving its interests, unilaterally withdraw from the compact

That was tried already. It failed. Move on already.
Click to expand...

Yes, that the gist of an amendment I said the states might consider passing. Are you saying that such an amendment has already been ratified? Because I don't see such an amendment in my copy of the constitution.

But if you want to insist on a new amendment, please show us public support for treason and you may have a chance at it passing.
Click to expand...

If an amendment were ratified that recognized a states power to peacefully and unilaterally leave union, then any state exercising that legal option would not be committing treason. They would be acting in a constitutional manner.
 
haymarket said:
That is a really nonsensical question. Why should any level of any government be allowed to violate the law?
Click to expand...

They aren't. No level of government is allowed to violate federal law. That is why I said that the federal government governs every person, village, town, city, county, and state. It governs in the sense that it can make a law that every person, village, town, city, county, and state MUST obey. That is the nature of government, no? The government is the entity that makes the law for everyone else?
 
Green Man said:
Yes, that the gist of an amendment I said the states might consider passing. Are you saying that such an amendment has already been ratified?
Click to expand...

see post 839 where this was made very very very clear to you.
 
Green Man said:
They aren't. No level of government is allowed to violate federal law. That is why I said that the federal government governs every person, village, town, city, county, and state. It governs in the sense that it can make a law that every person, village, town, city, county, and state MUST obey. That is the nature of government, no? The government is the entity that makes the law for everyone else?
Click to expand...

Let me guess? This is yet another one of your big super secret revelations about government that is suppose to scare the hell out of every citizen when they realize that all Americans have to obey the law. :doh:roll:
 
haymarket said:
see post 839 where this was made very very very clear to you.
Click to expand...

Right. No such amendment has been passed. Previously, some states tried to leave the union without such an amendment, and the federal government declared their actions illegal.

However, with such an amendment in place, a state peacefully leaving the union would could not be construed as treason, since it would be entirely constitutional and legal.
 
haymarket said:
Let me guess? This is yet another one of your big super secret revelations about government that is suppose to scare the hell out of every citizen when they realize that all Americans have to obey the law.
Click to expand...

There's no need to be scared of our wise and beneficent overlords. If you're not doing anything they regard as wrong, you have nothing to fear from their drones. :)

And the supremacy clause is not a secret at all. It is a well known and long established legal fact of our government that is laid out clearly in the constitution.
 
Green Man said:
Right. No such amendment has been passed. Previously, some states tried to leave the union without such an amendment, and the federal government declared their actions illegal.

However, with such an amendment in place, a state peacefully leaving the union would could not be construed as treason, since it would be entirely constitutional and legal.
Click to expand...

An while you prepare for that you may want to alert Atlatna, Georgia about a possible two feet of snow in July as there is just as much chance of that happening as your amendment making treason legit.
 
Green Man said:
There's no need to be scared of our wise and beneficent overlords. If you're not doing anything they regard as wrong, you have nothing to fear from their drones. :)

And the supremacy clause is not a secret at all. It is a well known and long established legal fact of our government that is laid out clearly in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Yeah - we get it - this is more of your doomsday nightmare scenario and you don't have the slightest suggestion as to what to do about it. :doh:roll:
 
haymarket said:
Yeah - we get it - this is more of your doomsday nightmare scenario and you don't have the slightest suggestion as to what to do about it.
Click to expand...

It's not my scenario. It is the constitution. Everybody knows about the supremacy clause, except you, evidently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom