• 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!

Should the Senate be Eliminated

In your repeated asking the same question. Now go away and educate yourself.

Someone doesn't know what hypocrisy means

If anything the hypocrisy is from you - you scream at others educating themselves - like reading the comments people like Supreme Court justice Joseph Story wrote about secession and the Constitution, yet you refuse to read the link (or the comments of any other constitutional scholars over the years.


More of your pathetic hypocrisy.

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - Socrates

You my friend are the clear loser, refusing to look at what has been written and deeming your own, ignorant, legally untrained and totally inexperienced OPINION above others including SC justices who's actual job included interpreting the Constitution.


In my first or second reply to you I pointed out facts from the link to you...

No you didn't, you just listed YOUR opinion

The opinions of ignorant hypocrites are worthless


It is worth as much as your opinion...


That might be so but at least I have read what scholars have said over the years, unlike you

And their opinions based on vocation, legal training and experience are worth a billion times more than yours.
 
Someone doesn't know what hypocrisy means
The blatant hypocrisy in your posts is there for anyone to see.

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - Socrates
Is that why YOU started throwing insults in our exchange?

You my friend are the clear loser
No doubt because you can not quote the part of the Constitution that according to Story prohibits secession.

The opinions of ignorant hypocrites are worthless
That is why your opinion is dismissed by all here.

That might be so but at least I have read what scholars have said over the years
Yet you can not quote anything from them.

unlike you
You know nothing about me, but make up moronic crap to divert from your failure.
 
The blatant hypocrisy in your posts is there for anyone to see.

So it shouldn't be hard for even someone like you with little education to identify
Except you won't

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - attributed to Socrates


No doubt because you can not quote the part of the Constitution that according to Story prohibits secession.

No, because you won't read the link provided
You offer just your worthless opinion


That is why your opinion is dismissed by all here.

It's not my opinion, it is that of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story and all constitutional scholars since

Who do you think those links referred to ???


Yet you can not quote anything from them.

You were given the link that quotes Story
A link you refuse to read, nor would understand even if you did


You know nothing about me...


I know enogh about you my friend. You have no evidence, no sources who back you up...you have the weight of all learned opinion against you, yet you claim to know more than every constitutional scholar combined.

You. Some nameless, ignorant guy off the internet.

Is there anything left to know ?
 
So it shouldn't be hard for even someone like you with little education to identify
Except you won't

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - attributed to Socrates




No, because you won't read the link provided
You offer just your worthless opinion




It's not my opinion, it is that of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story and all constitutional scholars since

Who do you think those links referred to ???




You were given the link that quotes Story
A link you refuse to read, nor would understand even if you did





I know enogh about you my friend. You have no evidence, no sources who back you up...you have the weight of all learned opinion against you, yet you claim to know more than every constitutional scholar combined.

You. Some nameless, ignorant guy off the internet.

Is there anything left to know ?

You still can't quote the language in the constitution that prohibits any state from leaving the union?
 
Former justice Story did in the link you refuse to educate yourself with.

No he didn't. He didn't cite the language in the constitution that prohibits any state from leaving the union. Because, as I said earlier, there is no such language.
 
No he didn't. He didn't cite the language in the constitution that prohibits any state from leaving the union. Because, as I said earlier, there is no such language.

So did you read the link or not ?
 
So did you read the link or not ?

Nope. Didn't read it at all.

And, as I said, the constitution contains no language prohibiting any state from leaving the union.
 
So it shouldn't be hard for even someone like you with little education to identify
I did and what the **** would someonw like you know about education in general much less about someone you do not know?

No, because you won't read the link provided
The link has nothing to do with your inability to quote the part of the Constitution that either prohibits secession or is interpreted as such by Story. It has everything to do with your dishonesty.

You offer just your worthless opinion
I offered no opinion, only the fact that the Constitution does not contain an y language regarding secession.
The again all you have been able to do is lie, deflect and deny.

I know enogh about you my friend.
You know jack ****.

You have no evidence
Yet you still have to lie because you can not quote ANYTHING in the Constitution that addresses secession.

Some nameless, ignorant guy off the internet.
No more than you are.

Is there anything left to know ?
No, the lack of integrity and relevant knowledge on your part is amply demonstrated.
 
Nope. Didn't read it at all.

And, as I said, the constitution contains no language prohibiting any state from leaving the union.

Then how do you claim:

No he didn't. He didn't cite the language in the constitution that prohibits any state from leaving the union.

If you didn't read it ?

You have just been caught out in a lie.

Goodbye, this debate is over until you educate yourself. I've no interest in a pantomime contradiction contest

OR your personal opinion.
 
I did and what the **** would someonw like you know about education in general much less about someone you do not know?

I know what constitutional scholars say - you don't
I know that personal opinion is worthless - you don't

The link has nothing to do with your inability to quote the part of the Constitution...

Have you or have you not read the link ?

You make out like you know what it says - do you ?


I offered no opinion...

Only that in YOUR opinion all constitutional scholars are wrong and that a state can secede legally under the Constitution


The again all you have been able to do is lie, deflect and deny...

Which post# contains a lie and what is it ?


You know jack ****.

End of debate.
Goodbye.
 
Then how do you claim:



If you didn't read it ?

You have just been caught out in a lie.

Goodbye, this debate is over until you educate yourself. I've no interest in a pantomime contradiction contest

OR your personal opinion.

I know he didn't cite the language prohibiting a state from leaving the union because there is no such language. There is no way he could quote something that doesn't exist.
 
I know what constitutional scholars say - you don't
I know that personal opinion is worthless - you don't
Do not delude yourself, you know jack **** and your posts are ample proof of that.

Only that in YOUR opinion all constitutional scholars are wrong and that a state can secede legally under the Constitution
More of your lies.
I challenged you to quote the part of the Constitution that prohibits secession or the part that Story interprets as such, You simply CAN NOT but lie and deflect instead.

End of debate.
Goodbye.
Just because you can not quote what you have been repeatedly asked to do.
 
Do not delude yourself, you know jack **** and your posts are ample proof of that.

More of your lies.
I challenged you to quote the part of the Constitution that prohibits secession or the part that Story interprets as such, You simply CAN NOT but lie and deflect instead.

Just because you can not quote what you have been repeatedly asked to do.

You have the link, which you refuse to read, which gives you the language in the Constitution that prohibits secession - as stated by former SC justice Story.
 
You have the link, which you refuse to read, which gives you the language in the Constitution that prohibits secession - as stated by former SC justice Story.
You lie. Quote the ****ing language instead of posting moronic diversions.
 
You have the link, which you refuse to read, which gives you the language in the Constitution that prohibits secession - as stated by former SC justice Story.

There is no language that prohibits any state from leaving the union.

You're flat-out wrong.
 
I'm not going to entertain a pantomime repetition.

To those who feel they need proof that the Constitution prohibits secession, read the comments of former Supreme court Justice, Joseph Story.
 
I'm not going to entertain a pantomime repetition.

To those who feel they need proof that the Constitution prohibits secession, read the comments of former Supreme court Justice, Joseph Story.

So, you lose. I said that the constitution contains no language prohibiting any of the states from leaving the union. You were unable to cite any such language. Hence, you lose. Better luck next time.
 
Should the senate be eliminated because it gives unequal representation to people of the several sovereign states?

No, but there should be term limits and elimination of the two party system.
 
You have the link, which you refuse to read, which gives you the language in the Constitution that prohibits secession - as stated by former SC justice Story.

You lie. Quote the ****ing language instead of posting moronic diversions.

Moderator's Warning:
Secession is not the topic. "Should the Senate be Eliminated" is.

You two need to stop the back and forth and return to the discussing the "Should the Senate be Eliminated".
 
Should the senate be eliminated because it gives unequal representation to people of the several sovereign states?

No but I do believe we need a "fourth branch" of government that is solely made up of a panel of bipartisan Experts/SME's ("Subject Matter Experts") in economics, finance, law (Constitutional and non Constitutional), military, education, healthcare, etc. who give "The People" the appropriate information based on: 1) who wants it (lobbyist, corp, group, public); 2) why its national necessity (or not); and 3) how much it will cost (actual tax dollars). If a bill is passed, they are responsible for 'bench marking' it with milestones and costs to determine if its having a national benefit (money spent is adding national value or personal value). For instance, if we are spending 2 billion on a program that is failing at what point do we stop and keep throwing good money after bad??? Sadly, The Public has become so politically myopic and the budget over 8,000 pages to the point we are spending trillions of dollars on too many programs, many of which no progress is being made yet we keep bleeding good money for someone's political folly. We sorely need an ACCOUNTABILITY BRANCH!

Like they say "a form of insanity is doing the same thing over, and over, and over again, yet expecting a different result." Time to end the insanity.
 
Last edited:
No but I do believe we need a "fourth branch" of government that is solely made up of a panel of bipartisan Experts/SME's ("Subject Matter Experts") in economics, finance, law (Constitutional and non Constitutional), military, education, healthcare, etc. who give "The People" the appropriate information based on: 1) who wants it (lobbyist, corp, group, public); 2) why its national necessity (or not); and 3) how much it will cost (actual tax dollars). If a bill is passed, they are responsible for 'bench marking' it with milestones and costs to determine if its having a national benefit (money spent is adding national value or personal value). For instance, if we are spending 2 billion on a program that is failing at what point do we stop and keep throwing good money after bad??? Sadly, The Public has become so politically myopic and the budget over 8,000 pages to the point we are spending trillions of dollars on too many programs, many of which no progress is being made yet we keep bleeding good money for someone's political folly. We sorely need an ACCOUNTABILITY BRANCH!

Like they say "a form of insanity is doing the same thing over, and over, and over again, yet expecting a different result." Time to end the insanity.

We already have an "accountability branch" it's called the People, however, this branch has failed miserably in its duties. It seems that the only time "We the People" are concerned about the federal government is during election time, after the election is over we stick our collective heads in the sand. Our Senators should be responsible to the State legislatures they represent and our Representatives accountable to the People of their respective State districts. We the people have become so negligent in our duty to this Republic that now we are reaping what we have sowed, a federal government that has become the master of those who created it. The original design was the that the control of the federal government was in the hands of the States and the People of their respected States.
 
No but I do believe we need a "fourth branch" of government that is solely made up of a panel of bipartisan Experts/SME's ("Subject Matter Experts") in economics, finance, law (Constitutional and non Constitutional), military, education, healthcare, etc. who give "The People" the appropriate information based on: 1) who wants it (lobbyist, corp, group, public); 2) why its national necessity (or not); and 3) how much it will cost (actual tax dollars). If a bill is passed, they are responsible for 'bench marking' it with milestones and costs to determine if its having a national benefit (money spent is adding national value or personal value). For instance, if we are spending 2 billion on a program that is failing at what point do we stop and keep throwing good money after bad??? Sadly, The Public has become so politically myopic and the budget over 8,000 pages to the point we are spending trillions of dollars on too many programs, many of which no progress is being made yet we keep bleeding good money for someone's political folly. We sorely need an ACCOUNTABILITY BRANCH!

Like they say "a form of insanity is doing the same thing over, and over, and over again, yet expecting a different result." Time to end the insanity.

The same argument has been used in the UK to replace the British parliament's upper house with a core group of "experts"


This argument breaks down over who these "experts" should be and who should appoint them.

Secondly, does n't the government use "experts" anyway?
So who is to decide which group of "experts" have seniority ?


Really the Senate serves no purpose and should be scrapped with a constitutional amendment.


Lastly. I think it is a flaw in the Constitution to regard the judiciary and the legislature as arms of government - they are not. Only the executive branch is. The president and the cabinet - who should be elected congressmen.
 
Back
Top Bottom