• 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

Rich2018 said:
I'm not sure I know what you mean, are you suggesting that US states have or should have sovereignty ?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the union called the United States of America is a treaty between sovereign states. It is not a unitary state, like France or Germany.
 
Samwise said:
I'm saying that the union called the United States of America is a treaty between sovereign states. It is not a unitary state, like France or Germany.
Click to expand...

No, the states of the USA do not have sovereignty. They are not sovereign states.


The USA is a federation, not a confederation.

France or Germany are at present sovereign states.
 
Rich2018 said:
No, the states of the USA do not have sovereignty. They are not sovereign states.
Click to expand...
Treaty of Paris (1783):

"Britain acknowledges the United States (New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia[15]) to be free, sovereign, and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof,"

The USA is a federation, not a confederation.
Click to expand...
This is stated in the Constitution where exactly?
France or Germany are at present sovereign states.
Click to expand...
As is Pennsylvania.
 
Samwise said:
Treaty of Paris (1783):

"Britain acknowledges the United States (New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia[15]) to be free, sovereign, and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof,"
Click to expand...


Great.

US states still have no sovereignty though. They are not sovereign states.

Germany is a sovereign state. Pennsylvania is not - are you saying there is no difference ?

I think you need to state what your criteria is for a state to have "sovereignty"



This is stated in the Constitution where exactly?
Click to expand...

It's not, so what ?

North Korea can call itself a democracy - it's not.


As is Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

See above, Pennsylvania does not have sovereignty. As stated you must determine the qualifying criteria first.

Note: Saying so in a document doesn't make it so.
 
Rich2018 said:
Great.

US states still have no sovereignty though. They are not sovereign states.

Germany is a sovereign state. Pennsylvania is not - are you saying there is no difference ?

I think you need to state what your criteria is for a state to have "sovereignty"
Click to expand...
Be recognized by international law as a sovereign state. This occurred in the Treaty of Paris.
It's not, so what ?

North Korea can call itself a democracy - it's not.

See above, Pennsylvania does not have sovereignty. As stated you must determine the qualifying criteria first.

Note: Saying so in a document doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

What is the legal vehicle it used to cede its sovereignty?
 
Samwise said:
Be recognized by international law as a sovereign state. This occurred in the Treaty of Paris.
Click to expand...

You mean like a membership of the UN ?

Britain doesn't recognize US states as having sovereignty. A US state is not independent and does not have its own foreign policy. A sovereign state does.

Pennsylvania (for example) owes sovereignty to the USA - you may recall what happened the last time a group of US states declared that they had sovereignty.

You are a citizen of the USA not your state.

What is the legal vehicle it used to cede its sovereignty?
Click to expand...


When it joined the USA, it ceded sovereignty to it.
 
TheParser said:
In the coming decades, the liberals will probably abolish the Electoral College and the Senate.

Presidents will be elected by popular vote, and the House will be the sole legislative branch.

Like it or not, the future belongs to the liberals.

Those Americans who do not like it will have to grin and bear it or emigrate.
Click to expand...

Then we can eliminate the States as well, just have one government governing everything kind of like Stalin. Where the majority picks the government and if your a minority and you complain, GULAG for you.
 
Terryj said:
Then we can eliminate the States as well, just have one government governing everything kind of like Stalin. Where the majority picks the government and if your a minority and you complain, GULAG for you.
Click to expand...


Why would a minority face the GULAG ?

Does that happen in any other Western democracy ?

Why do you fear American democracy is so unstable ?
 
Terryj said:
Then we can eliminate the States as well, just have one government governing everything kind of like Stalin.
Click to expand...



I have read that before the Civil War, many people said "The United States are …" but after the Civil War, people started switching to "The United States is …."

Have a nice weekend!
 
TheParser said:
I have read that before the Civil War, many people said "The United States are …" but after the Civil War, people started switching to "The United States is …."

Have a nice weekend!
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point - I'll need to research that.
 
If anything we should get rid of the House. They are in a constant state of reelection recycle, they are essentially ****ing worthless, and they allow pockets of some of the dumbest people in the country to continue to send 'representation' to a governing body that brings shame to the Constitution and republic. Rather than provide accurate representation of states rights, they give excess weight to accumulated masses in cities with high population areas, giving undue federal power to individual states.
 
Rich2018 said:
Why would a minority face the GULAG ?

Does that happen in any other Western democracy ?

Why do you fear American democracy is so unstable ?
Click to expand...

Look where we are at right now in this country, if you are a Trump supporter or a Republican you could be be assaulted for just presenting your views. It's not a very far reach to suggest that with a majority rule via popular vote and doing away with the Senate could led to such actions. It's happened to other countries and we are not immune to human behavior.
 
Terryj said:
Look where we are at right now in this country, if you are a Trump supporter or a Republican you could be be assaulted for just presenting your views....
Click to expand...


That's politics (and religion or sport) for you the world over.

Promote British Conservative policies in the wrong pub and you can get yourself assaulted

You don'y get the secret police knocking at your door though in the UK or the USA


It's not a very far reach to suggest that with a majority rule via popular vote and doing away with the Senate could led to such actions. It's happened to other countries and we are not immune to human behavior.
Click to expand...


What is wrong with ruling by majority vote ?
It happens in the UK and so far after hundreds of years, the UK remains a democracy


The constant US elections and check and balances in the USA just delivers political inertia, like when you have a president from one party and a congress dominated by the other.

The US president should not be the head of government, the leader of the House should.
 
Rich2018 said:
You mean like a membership of the UN ?

Britain doesn't recognize US states as having sovereignty. A US state is not independent and does not have its own foreign policy. A sovereign state does.

Pennsylvania (for example) owes sovereignty to the USA - you may recall what happened the last time a group of US states declared that they had sovereignty.

You are a citizen of the USA not your state.

When it joined the USA, it ceded sovereignty to it.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that?
 
Rich2018 said:
On the front cover of your passport.
Click to expand...

So, I'm right. There is nothing in the constitution that indicates that any of the states were giving up their sovereignty.
 
Samwise said:
So, I'm right. There is nothing in the constitution that indicates that any of the states were giving up their sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Or the people either.
 
Rich2018 said:
You mean like a membership of the UN ?

Britain doesn't recognize US states as having sovereignty. A US state is not independent and does not have its own foreign policy. A sovereign state does.

Pennsylvania (for example) owes sovereignty to the USA - you may recall what happened the last time a group of US states declared that they had sovereignty.

You are a citizen of the USA not your state.




When it joined the USA, it ceded sovereignty to it.
Click to expand...

No, when the States created the Central government they only ceded specific rights to the central government, these rights are spelled out in Article 1 sections 8,9 and 10. All other powers are reserved to the People and the States. The intent of creating a central government was to deal with "external issues" and all "domestic issues" were to handled by the States.

The States are free to form their own government, make their own laws as long as they conform to the Constitution in which "they the States" created. The Central government did not create itself in which all States are subjugated unto it, on the contrary, the central government is subjugated unto the States.
 
Samwise said:
So, I'm right. There is nothing in the constitution that indicates that any of the states were giving up their sovereignty.
Click to expand...

They didn't have any to give up.

They were British colonists who found themselves ruled by a government in the newly formed USA.


They switched from UK subjects to US citizens.


Now when the newly independent Texas (for example) chose to join the union, they did indeed give up their sovereignty. They were no longer citizens of Texas, but citizens of the USA.


You have yet to give your criteria for a "sovereign state".
 
Terryj said:
No, when the States created the Central government they only ceded specific rights to the central government, these rights are spelled out in Article 1 sections 8,9 and 10....
Click to expand...

So the USA has a highly devolved federal style of government.

It doesn't make the individual states "sovereign"


...the intent of creating a central government was to deal with "external issues" and all "domestic issues" were to handled by the States....
Click to expand...

Devolving those powers does make US state separate countries or bestow any sovereignty on them.


The States are free to form their own government, make their own laws as long as they conform to the Constitution in which "they the States" created....
Click to expand...


So what ?

Individual states are strictly limited as to what they can do. They can't even vote to leave the USA like the British did in 2016, in the "Brexit" referendum.
The last time a group of US states tried to leave and establish true sovereignty, they were faced with a bloody civil war and forced to remain part of the USA.
 
Rich2018 said:
They didn't have any to give up.

They were British colonists who found themselves ruled by a government in the newly formed USA.

They switched from UK subjects to US citizens.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. After the war for independence, the treaty of Paris recognized them as sovereign and independent states:

Britain acknowledges the United States (New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia) to be free, sovereign, and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof

Now when the newly independent Texas (for example) chose to join the union, they did indeed give up their sovereignty. They were no longer citizens of Texas, but citizens of the USA.


You have yet to give your criteria for a "sovereign state".
Click to expand...
Recognized as sovereign by the international community. The states were recognized as sovereign by Britain (as shown above) as well as in other treaties by France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic.
 
Samwise said:
This is incorrect. After the war for independence, the treaty of Paris recognized them as sovereign and independent states
Click to expand...

So what.

Did Britain send an ambassador to each one ?>

They were not sovereign states as shown by the Civil War that happened when a few of them tried to leave the USA. A state cannot unilaterally leave the USA.

QED: They are not sovereign states - you're clutching at straws here.

Recognized as sovereign by the international community. The states were recognized as sovereign by Britain (as shown above) as well as in other treaties by France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic.
Click to expand...

In 1812, the USA declared war on Britain, not the individual states.

Britain fought the USA, not a group of sovereign states.
 
chuckiechan said:
Sure. Lose an election then change the country so you never lose again. Screw those who disagree with you. Turn them into cheese.
Click to expand...

Thank you for putting voice to the republican mantra.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom