• 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

Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
Who is that - specifically?
Click to expand...
Anyone with basic reading skills and integrity. It is becoming clear that you are not among those.
Why can't you quote the relevant text? Why do you have to lie and divert? Why the hypocrisy?
 
prometeus said:
Anyone with basic reading skills and integrity. It is becoming clear that you are not among those.
Why can't you quote the relevant text? Why do you have to lie and divert? Why the hypocrisy?
Click to expand...


Who is that - specifically ? - names please

Justice Story had "basic reading skills" Btw
 
prometeus said:
Your hypocrisy is noted...
Click to expand...

Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another, where did you detect this ?


Quote the part of the Constitution that prohibits secession.
Click to expand...


You were asked:
Who saying the Constitution doesn't prohibit secession ? Specifically ? - names please
You can't give any names
QED: It's just YOUR opinion - which is worthless
Dodge noted.


Justice Joseph Story said the Constitution prohibited secession and he had "basic reading skills" Btw
Now your sources please on who says it doesn't
 
Rich2018 said:
Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another, where did you detect this ?
Click to expand...
You in your replies to daniel in the other thread.
Now can you end your hypocrisy and lies and quote the part of the Constitution that prohibits secession?
 
prometeus said:
You in your replies to daniel in the other thread.
Now can you end your hypocrisy and lies and quote the part of the Constitution that prohibits secession?
Click to expand...

That is quite simple. But you have to look elsewhere.

The Constitution superseded an even older document, which was the first framework of our country. And that document was never revoked, nor was it abolished. And the nation it created continued on, same name, same basic form of government, just a new binding document. And even though most simply call it the "Articles of Confederation", it actually has a much longer name.

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

In fact, here is the closing segments of that document:

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the united states, in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, Know Ye, that we, the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do, by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained. And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual. In Witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, in Congress. Done at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, the ninth Day of July, in the Year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy eight, and in the third year of the Independence of America.
Click to expand...

As you can see, the Union was perpetual and unbreakable before the Constitution. And while it was replaced, in no way was this union that was created ever dissolved. The AoC was not thrown away, it was not disbanded, it simply created a new form of government while keeping much of the old that did work. And finally, remember that the Constitution includes a lot of details about accepting new states. Yet strangely, there is not a single thing about allowing a state to leave.

That is because they were never intended to leave, once they joined the Union, it was perpetual. It is prohibited simply because there was never any system put in place to allow a state to leave, or to evict a state from the Union.

And finally, if a state wanted to leave the Union, then it should attempt to do so in the same way it enters it. By petitioning Congress, and using the legal process. Not by taking up arms and starting a war.
 
Nickyjo said:
Oh yeah, why not just let corporations appoint them?
Click to expand...
No - in such an instance, that choice would return to where the Framers intended it to reside: with the States.
 
prometeus said:
You in your replies to daniel in the other thread.
Now can you end your hypocrisy and lies and quote the part of the Constitution that prohibits secession?
Click to expand...


Where was the hypocrisy - where was one thing stated and another contrary action followed ?
You don't know the meaning of the word. To you it's some random insult and yet one more thing you say that you cant's substantiate

Where are the lies ?
What was said and in what post that was stated and knowingly been to be untrue ?

You are quick to hurl insults - less quick to do some actual research like read the link I've given you multiple times.


You're just some ignorant guy off the internet who thinks his opinion is worth something and refuses to research.


Once again, your opinion is worthless.
 
cpwill said:
No - in such an instance, that choice would return to where the Framers intended it to reside: with the States.
Click to expand...

As I understood it, one of the reasons people pushed the amendment was that businesses had so tightly controlled several state legislatures. That was the reason for my comment. The founders weren’t perfect, and knew it, which is why they gave us a process for amending the Constitution. As it stands, the Senate is an undemocratic institution, intended that way for better or worse.

But what is your reason for wanting to get rid of the direct election of Senators? Back in the sixties, the John Birch Society preached that the amendment was the first step in the country going south, but I don’t remember the reason they gave.
 
Last edited:
Oozlefinch said:
That is quite simple. But you have to look elsewhere.
Click to expand...
There is nowhere else to look. The Constitution is the ONLY governing law and it does NOT address secession in any way.

The Constitution superseded an even older document
Click to expand...
Yes, in other words it replaced it in its entirety. It did NOT AMEND it. That would have made the AoC still relevant but they are not.

As you can see, the Union was perpetual and unbreakable before the Constitution. And while it was replaced, in no way was this union that was created ever dissolved.
Click to expand...
It was not implied that the union was dissolved or that it became some sort of different union. The issue and only issue here is that the Constitution does not address secession.

The AoC was not thrown away, it was not disbanded
Click to expand...
It was replaced and as such it is no longer valid even if the principles and concepts in it remain so.

Yet strangely, there is not a single thing about allowing a state to leave.
Click to expand...
Nor prohibiting it.

That is because they were never intended to leave
Click to expand...
At the time probably not, but even if at the present time the no one even contemplates it, some actually did, who is to say what the future hols?

It is prohibited simply because there was never any system put in place to allow a state to leave, or to evict a state from the Union.
Click to expand...
That has no basis in law.

And finally, if a state wanted to leave the Union, then it should attempt to do so in the same way it enters it. By petitioning Congress, and using the legal process.
Click to expand...
I do not disagree with that. The other p[oster insisted that a constitutional amendment was necessary which is incorrect.

Not by taking up arms and starting a war.
Click to expand...
Violence is a poor solution to anything.
 
Rich2018 said:
Where was the hypocrisy
Click to expand...
In your repeated asking the same question. Now go away and educate yourself.

You are quick to hurl insults
Click to expand...
More of your pathetic hypocrisy.

less quick to do some actual research like read the link I've given you multiple times.
Click to expand...
In my first or second reply to you I pointed out facts from the link to you, so take your lies and feed them to someone who falls for your crap.

You're just some ignorant guy off the internet who thinks his opinion is worth something and refuses to research.


Once again, your opinion is worthless.
Click to expand...
It is worth as much as your opinion any day and at least I do not have to resort to lies and diversions like the truly ignorant and dishonest.
 
Nickyjo said:
As I understood it, one of the reasons people pushed the amendment was that businesses had so tightly controlled several state legislatures. That was the reason for my comment. The founders weren’t perfect, and knew it, which is why they gave us a process for amending the Constitution. As it stands, the Senate is an undemocratic institution, intended that way for better or worse.

But what is your reason for wanting to get rid of the direct election of Senators? Back in the sixties, the John Birch Society preached that the amendment was the first step in the country going south, but I don’t remember the reason they gave.
Click to expand...

I couldn't speak to the Birchers, but I would agree with the sentiment that, once Senators became basically Representatives with longer tenures and the States lost their representation at the Federal level, that was a step into a divergent path towards ever-greater nationalization of all political questions and policies that has proven divisive and destructive.
 
Even Hamilton recognized that there may come a time when the States must exercise their sovereign power to end of all delegated authority to the federal government. In cases of self-preservation/secession, Hamilton cannot get away from the controlling principle in Federalist Paper 26, in which he describes a situation where the three federal branches of government conspire to encroach upon the rights of the people and the sovereignty of the states. In this event, Hamilton says, “If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.” Hamilton observes that “State legislatures will always be not only the vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government.” FP 26.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom