• 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!

The minority majority

prometeus said:
You are playing the same retarded game like the other poster. Clearly neither of you have a clue or a relevant intelligent argument.
Bye...
Click to expand...

It's not my fault that you do not understand sovereignty, nor apparently are you familiar with provisions of the Constitution which 1) allow the states to dissolve the federal government if they choose, and 2) prevent the federal government from dissolving a state.

Bottom line: the states are inviolable. The federal government is not. If you do not understand how that speaks to sovereignty, then you have no idea what sovereignty means. Ignoring me will not change any of that.
 
Harshaw said:
It's not my fault that you do not understand sovereignty, nor apparently are you familiar with provisions of the Constitution which 1) allow the states to dissolve the federal government if they choose, and 2) prevent the federal government from dissolving a state.

Bottom line: the states are inviolable. The federal government is not. If you do not understand how that speaks to sovereignty, then you have no idea what sovereignty means. Ignoring me will not change any of that.
Click to expand...
I am only ignoring the moronic drivel you keep repeating and pointing out how stupid it is. You have yet to offer a single piece of evidence that supports what you say. Your uneducated misrepresentation is not evidence.
 
prometeus said:
I am only ignoring the moronic drivel you keep repeating and pointing out how stupid it is. You have yet to offer a single piece of evidence that supports what you say. Your uneducated misrepresentation is not evidence.
Click to expand...

I offered you the articles of the Constitution which back what I say.

It's you who have not offered a single rebuttal of anything I've said.

My argument is stated as simply as it can be. If you understand it, and it is wrong, you should be able to rebut it. But I don't think you understand it well enough even to begin.
 
Lafayette said:
Powerful, how? It can override the HofR?
Click to expand...
Already explained that. Re-read it.

Lafayette said:
On the Federal level in the Senate that is the case. All states are represented equally by the same number of votes.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm aware of how it is. I'm saying that it's idiotic, and needs to be fixed.

Lafayette said:
Which means that which is best or necessary to the entire public commonly of the state. Or nation!
Click to expand...
Sure, but if a minority has overwhelming control of the Senate then it's not acting in the best interest of the public.
 
Yes_Minister said:
That's poor answer because it explains nothing, exactly how is democracy destroying Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc? Frankly this stuff makes you sound like an authoritarian.

Really can you say in any sort of detailed way how the Electoral College is better then any sort Westminster system?

If the US is so free, why is it not at the top of the economic freedom index?

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Or the freedom of press index?

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2018-04-25/us-falls-in-world-press-freedom-index
Click to expand...

I have answered the question several times.

Democracy is a gateway drug to communism. Democracy is also antithetical to the rule of law, and the enemy of rights. I have the same opinion as the men who created the anti-democratic Constitution.
 
Lafayette said:
Yes, well, then the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is irrelevant as well?

You keep harping back to the Constitution as if it were the bible. It isn't. Which is why some countries have had multiple constitutions historically.

Some people, however, like absolutes because they are so simple to obey. Unfortunately, they also rarely make for good governance of a nation. Because absolutism never bends to reality.

Which is why Communism is dead and gone ...
Click to expand...

Show me the constitutional basis for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
 
Lafayette said:
How about doing all that for us.

One liners are the bane of a Debate Forum. They say nothing, nothing, nothing.

Dunces employ them to fill blank space as a reply because they feel obliged to "say something".

Mostly because they do not have the intellectual capacity to rebut meaningfully ...
Click to expand...

Arguing a subject matter with no knowledge of the subject matter other than how one wishes the subject matter was, is the bane of a debate.
 
Lafayette said:
If you had any foundation in European history, you'd know that the Russian Communists in 1917 did what was necessary for the poor to free themselves from the yoke of slavery controlled by the Royal Family. And the fact that such families existed throughout Europe's established "kingdoms" for centuries was one reason why Europe established finally Social Democracies throughout.

You are playing with symbols for which you have no understanding whatsoever of human history ...

PS: Karl Marx was not an ogre. He was an intelligent man who saw the plight of mankind - how they worked for a pittance, how they died younger than necessary because of their work. All for the benefit of a privileged few families who owned the land. Unfortunately, his political theory (Communism) proved itself inept as a solution.
PPS: Furthermore, you have no idea whatsoever how that very same societal phenomenon is repeating itself in America!
Click to expand...

You made my point.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Maybe that depends upon how cruel the tyranny of the majority might be on any issue?
Click to expand...

And who makes that decision? How is "cruel" defined? What about the cruelty of the minority?
 
prometeus said:
No it is not relevant. Do you even understand what sovereignty means? Can any state as a sovereign entity enter into a treaty with another nation?
Click to expand...

That is an irrelevant statement. A sovereign states did cede that specific power, which does not mean that they gave up their sovereignty.
 
Harshaw said:
I offered you the articles of the Constitution which back what I say.

It's you who have not offered a single rebuttal of anything I've said.

My argument is stated as simply as it can be. If you understand it, and it is wrong, you should be able to rebut it. But I don't think you understand it well enough even to begin.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the Constitution that supports your view.
 
Tennyson said:
There is nothing in the Constitution that supports your view.
Click to expand...

Of course there is.

That the federal government can be dissolved by the states:

Article V:

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
Click to expand...

"Article of Amendment:

This Constitution shall be null and void upon ratification of this Amendment, and the United States shall be dissolved. The several States shall then be free and independent nations."

3/4 of the states ratify, and boom. Done.

That the federal government cannot dissolve a state:

Article IV:

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
Click to expand...

Article V:

and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
Of course there is.

That the federal government can be dissolved by the states:

Article V:



"Article of Amendment:

This Constitution shall be null and void upon ratification of this Amendment, and the United States shall be dissolved. The several States shall then be free and independent nations."

3/4 of the states ratify, and boom. Done.

That the federal government cannot dissolve a state:

Article IV:



Article V:
Click to expand...

I agree. Disregard my post. I replied to the wrong person.
 
Tennyson said:
That is an irrelevant statement. A sovereign states did cede that specific power, which does not mean that they gave up their sovereignty.
Click to expand...
Along with other powers thus rendering them less than sovereign. To be sovereign means retaining any and all powers, rights and capabilities. Anything less is not sovereign.
 
prometeus said:
Making moronic assertions and denial do not change reality, but demonstrate your lack of knowledge.
Educate yourself.
Click to expand...

Texas v White did not determine secession. That has already been addressed in another thread with no counter argument.
 
prometeus said:
Along with other powers thus rendering them less than sovereign. To be sovereign means retaining any and all powers, rights and capabilities. Anything less is not sovereign.
Click to expand...

Then the US is not sovereign for the same reason.
 
prometeus said:
Making moronic assertions and denial do not change reality, but demonstrate your lack of knowledge.
Educate yourself.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to be able to contribute much of anything which rises above this.

For example, you have not even attempted to refute my argument.
 
Harshaw said:
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
Click to expand...
Sovereign entities do not have limitations imposed on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom