The Instigator
DanT
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
blackhawk1331
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

State's have a Right to Secede

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,536 times Debate No: 18493
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (47)
Votes (5)

 

DanT

Pro

States are Guaranteed the Right to Secede by the US Constitution.
blackhawk1331

Con

Thank you for posting this debate. I am assuming that this is just an acceptance round so I will now shut-up and let you make your first argument. Oh, one last thing, what is the format for the rest of this debate?
Debate Round No. 1
DanT

Pro

Format;
Round 1: Acceptance only
Round 2: Opening arguments/Rebuttals
Round 3: Responses and Closing/ Closing, no new arguments

----------------------------------------------

The case of Texas v. White was a Judiciary ruling against State's have a Right to Secede, however the ruling it's self was unconstitutional, because the judiciary is not supposed to create, amend or repeal laws but only to uphold them.

The power to secede was a right of the states.

Although in Texas vs White the supreme Court ruled;

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States"

James Madison was the one to write the constitution, and in the Federalist papers he stated;
"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution,
is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others,
and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.
In this relation, then, the new Constitution will,
if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."

I am more incline to believe the author than the critic, in regards to what a book does or does not say, and I believe he constitution follows the same principles.

Another founding father who agreed with James Madison was Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson once stated, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. "

Thomas Jefferson has also stated, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation... to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"

Article 3 Section Section 1, states Judicial Powers;

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

The Constitution left it up to Congress to determine what is "Judicial Powers" and in the Judiciary act of 1789 they did just that.
Section 34 of the Judiciary Act states;
"And be it further enacted, That the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply."

In other words, the judges cannot rewrite the constitution, and cannot change established laws and treaties, but the are allowed to establish common law.

In the Bill of Rights the 10th Amendment to the US constitution reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Article 1 Section 10, states the Powers prohibited of States;

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

It does not list secession, and each state that joined the Confederacy seceded before joining.

Article 4 section 1 also requires Each State to Honor all others;

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

In other words the States have the right to create public Acts, Records, and conduct judicial Proceedings, without the consent of other states.

That specifically contradicts the Ruling of Texas vs White;

"The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States"

The only way States would require another states consent to secede would be if it was a specific power of congress.

Article 1 Section 8 lists the Powers of Congress, and secession is never mentioned.

Article 4 Section 3 addresses New States;

"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.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

T o make clear the United States refers to the Federal Government, and States are not a territory nor property of the Federal Government.

The part where it specifically states, "nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." makes clear that each state is sovereign, and this section is not granting the Federal government sovereignty over the states, nor states sovereignty over the Federal Government.

The Semicolon was placed to mark a interdependent statement, in other words, the statement was made specifically to clear up any confusion.

Because the power of Common Law is limited, the Supreme Court had no authority to rewrite the constitution, seeing as we are not a Kritarchy, and because the ruling regarding secession contradicted the constitution specifically it is essentially void, as common law. Since there is no Common Law regarding secession, and seeing as the Constitution does not mention secession, it follows that secession is a state power.
blackhawk1331

Con

I'll get around to the case of Texas v White later seeing as how that is my argument. Also, I'm going to skip some things because I doubt I will have the space to address it all.

I am kind of confused by your author versus critic point. It seems that you are getting at the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the final ruling in what the Constitution says seeing as how the writer is no longer alive. Also, in case you have forgotten, the ultimate job of the Supreme Court is to INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. That means that you have to follow what they say anymore. Now, since Madison is a person that you quoted, I will also quote him.

"Lastly, it would facilitate and foster the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us." [1-1]


Does this really sound like secession is well looked upon?

Thomas Jefferson once stated, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. "

That's essentially the same as when the guy at the wedding says that anyone who doesn't want the marriage needs to speak or forever hold their peace. If they don't object to the wedding at that time, they can't go and object 30 years later and expect something to happen. Jefferson was clearly talking to a group of people. That means that THOSE people should have broken from the US. That quote didn't stand as an option to take advantage of once that meeting ended.

The same goes for the second quote of Jefferson's.

Your first quote for the Supreme Court is irrelevant as far as I can tell. If there was a point to that, please tell me. Your second quote says nothing about the Supreme Court re-writing the Constitution, not that they ever have. It says that laws of the states are subject to the rulings of US courts. The only exception is if the Constitution, a treaty, or a statute specifically says something is or is not allowed. I challenge you to find a federal paper that explicitly says secession is a right guaranteed to the states. A federal law counts too.

I'd like to hit on the last part of the 10th amendment. The "or the people" part. The president of the United States is elected by the people. The elected presidents choose the Supreme Court justices if a new one is needed. So, any ruling of the Supreme Court would technically be a ruling that the people should be in favor of. The fact that no one has brought the illegitimacy of the ruling up just goes to prove that people were, and still are, in favor of secession being illegal.

You say that each state joined the Confederacy after seceding. While this is true, the US Government never recognized the CSA as its own entity. They were all rebels. Therefor, the secession never happened in the eyes of the government, and the states joined in a confederacy, made both bills and coins, kept troops, not only kept but used an all new war ship, and engaged in war all without the required consent of Congress.

In other words the States have the right to create public Acts, Records, and conduct judicial Proceedings, without the consent of other states.

That isn't what that quote says. The public acts and such are just records of the proceedings of the state. That quote says that the states are being trusted with public affairs of the other states. So taxes, judicial rulings, new state laws, etc. of one state can be read and looked through by another state. That quote says nothing about the consent (or lack there of) of other states.

The quote that you say directly conflicts with the Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with it. The ruling is on the state of the relationship of Texas with the other states. The quote is about transparency in public documents.

That whole quote of Article 4 Section 3 is completely irrelevant to this debate. The entire thing is about the formation of new states. Of course there won't be anything about the dissolving of the Union in this quote. Article 4 Section 3 addresses New States The part you pulled out doesn't really say anything about each state being sovereign. To be sovereign would mean that the state is all powerful. Obviously, neither the state nor the federal government are all powerful. Of the two, though, the federal government holds greater power. The part you pulled out basically seems to be saying that the federal government can't take land from a state because they don't like it.

I'll admit that I don't completely know what you mean by common law, so I will provide a definition.

Common Law - That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. [2]

Seeing as how the northern states came together to fight a war to keep the CSA from officially becoming its own entity, I'd say there was universal consent among the winning side. That side also happens to be the one who made secession illegal.


Now for my argument.
It is undeniable that in Texas v White, the Supreme Court made a retroactive ruling that secession is illegal. While this ruling was unconstitutional, It was made. Until someone rises up and challenges this claim, the Supreme Court has no reason to revisit it. Even if they did revisit the case, there's no guarantee that they would declare the original ruling unconstitutional. Since it is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the constitution, then secession is illegal if they interpret it to be. No matter how much you call this ruling unconstitutional or say that it is void, this is not the case. Until the day comes when the ruling is overturned, it stands as common law and it must be followed.


"Lastly, it would facilitate and foster the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us." [1-1]

This is a quote that I used previously. James Madison wrote this in the Federalist Papers. This quote clearly displays that James Madison, the one who you quoted as supporting secession, does not think highly of secession. He calls it a "baneful practice" that "ruins popular governments".

Once again, thank you for this debate. Also, I am impressed. I didn't expect you to start challenging the Supreme Court's ruling.

[1] - http://thomas.loc.gov...
[1-1] - http://thomas.loc.gov...
[2] - http://www.lectlaw.com...
Debate Round No. 2
DanT

Pro

Response;

My opponent claims that, "the ultimate job of the Supreme Court is to INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION."

That is False the Supreme Court acts as a Final Court of Appeals, and does not interpret law, it upholds the law.

uphold is defined as supporting against an opponent
interpret is defined as make sense of; assign a meaning to

Judicial review as I stated before is subject to rule of Law, and the constitution. If it conflicts, than it is void.


Your quote by James Madison was not in context.
That is partial quote from Federalist papers No. 58 in which James Madison was referring the process of majority rule, not secession. He was speaking about how Majority rule would lead to arbitrarily secession. James Madison favored secession under certain circumstances, and opposed it being used arbitrarily.


My opponent claims my quote by Jefferson, shows Jefferson was opposed to secession. That is false he supported secession, but opposed the arbitrary practice.

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. "

Jefferson was saying those who wish to secede may do so , but they have to live with the result.



My opponent claims a connection between the Jefferson quote and a wedding. That again is false
It is not the same thing as a wedding, in order to dissolve a union, it must be previously established. In order to prevent a union it must not yet be established.

My opponent has stated, "I challenge you to find a federal paper that explicitly says secession is a right guaranteed to the states. A federal law counts too."

That would be the 10th amendment.


My opponent has tried to make the claim that because the 10th amendment gives all unmentioned powers to the states or to the people, than the Supreme Court and the President has unmentioned powers, because the people elect the president and the president appoints the Supreme Court.

There are 2 things wrong with that claim.
1.) The 10th amendment limits the power of the Federal Government, not expands it.
2.) The President is not elected by the people, he is elected by electors.

My opponent claims that Article 4 section 1 does not state, that each states must honor all other states.
This is false, and could have only been concluded by someone who was selective reading.


"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." (Notice the period)

Public Act is defined as an act of legislation affecting the public as a whole

Judicial Proceedings is defined as litigation: a legal proceeding in a court; a judicial contest to determine and enforce legal rights


"And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

This is the section my opponent must have skipped ahead to, disregarding what the rest of Section 1 had to say.





It does not matter if the United States recognized the secession. If the united states does not recognize your right to freedom of speech, would you still protest?



My opponent seems to misunderstand the term prejudice.

Prejudice is defined as bias or a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.


My opponent stated he does not know what common law is, so I will define it for him.

Common law is defined as a system of jurisprudence based on judicial precedents rather than statutory laws.









-----------------------------------------------------

Closing;

Definition;


Common law is defined as a system of jurisprudence based on judicial precedents rather than statutory laws.

Public Act is defined as an act of legislation affecting the public as a whole

Judicial Proceedings is defined as litigation: a legal proceeding in a court; a judicial contest to determine and enforce legal rights

Prejudice is defined as bias or a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.




Closing;


According to Section 34 of the Judiciary Act states;
"That the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply."


The ruling of Texas vs White states;
"The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. "

however

Article 4 Section 3 of the US Constitution;
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;... and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."


The ruling of Texas vs White states;
"There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States"

however

Article 4 Section 1 of the US Constitution;
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."









Conclusion;


The case Texas vs White violated the constitution by requiring consent from other states in order to pass an act, according to Article 4 section 1 of the constitution. Therefore according to the Judiciary Act of 1789, the ruling is void in regards to common law.







Note: I ask those who vote to please regard this debate as fantasy supreme Supreme Court case, because if the ruling was void, it would still be enforced.
blackhawk1331

Con

The primary role of the US Supreme Court is interpreting the Constitution. [1]

"God save the United States and this Honorable Court," chants the Marshal as the U.S. Supreme Court enters the courtroom to hear arguments and issue some 150 annual major interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. [2]

the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. [3]

Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation [3]

And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges[3]


First, I never said the court interprets the law, I said it interprets the constitution. If you really want to contest this now, not that you can in this debate, then we can have a whole new debate on that.

So Madison supported premeditated secession, but not random secession? How long is one expected to think about it? Ignoring that, you never specified a type of secession or a secession in some cases. You used secession as a blanket statement. Therefore, my quote holds seeing as how Madison trashes secession in it. There was nothing mentioned before my accepting of this debate that specified what type of secession or under what conditions it's acceptable.

I don't disagree that Jefferson was saying that one could secede. I am saying that he was providing an option that people had to take advantage of at that point in time. It doesn't stay a viable option forever.
Now that I re-read the quote, I see that Jefferson gave is telling people that they can secede but it would be a stupid idea void of reason.

The marriage idea works in principle. They aren't a direct correlation obviously. Anyone can see that that conclusion could only be drawn by someone who was reading selectively. The idea I was getting at is that if no one objects to the marriage at that time, then they can't suddenly object 20 years later and expect the same results. When Jefferson made that quote, anyone could secede at will. Now, though, you can't draw upon that quote and expect the same results.

Here comes that selective reading issue again. You ignored the part about it explicitly saying that secession was legal. The 10th amendment doesn't explicitly say that secession is allowed. It hints at it, but it doesn't explicitly say it.

The winner of the presidential election tends to be the person that most people want. There have only been four instances where a president won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. Unfortunately for you, none of those presidents were in power during Texas v White. Therefore, that Supreme Court would be an accurate representation of the people.

I'd like to point out that the definition of public acts doesn't change my interpretation. I still interpret it as being a quote about transparency among the state governments.

I honestly missed that second quote. I meant to delete the part about my possibly having to skip a part, but I forgot. I will attempt to address it without bringing in new information. That part of the quote is saying that Congress will decide on how to prove the legitimacy of the document(s), and its/their effect. My original response to that question was actually addressing section 1 of the quote.

Your question about not recognizing freedom of speech fails to pull through because the freedom of speech is guaranteed EXPLICITLY in the 1st amendment. Secession be legal is not.

Here is the definition of prejudice that I used.

Prejudice - an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand orwithout knowledge, thought, or reason. [4]

Seeing as how you neglected to provide a definition at the beginning of this debate, I refuse to use your definition and instead use mine because mine is more favorable to me.

I stated that I wasn't entirely sure what common law was, and I provided my own definition. Mine suits me better, so I will use it because you can't hold me to a definition that I did not agree to at the beginning of this debate.

To close out my arguments section, I would like to point out how perfect it is that our interpretations of different quotes differ. You interpreted the quote one way, and I interpreted the same exact quote to mean something totally different. This is why the Supreme Court is needed to interpret the constitution. What one person may interpret one way, a different person could interpret to mean the exact opposite. The Supreme Court justices are privileged enough to have their interpretation be the one that counts in the court of law. Therefore, if they interpret the constitution to say that secession is illegal, then it is illegal until a different court overrules the original ruling.


CONCLUSION

I reject your definitions of prejudice and common law, and replace them with my own.

Prejudice - an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand orwithout knowledge, thought, or reason. [4]

Common Law - That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. [5]

Quotes provided by my opponent do not support his claims.

Article 4 Section 3 of the US Constitution;
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;... and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

This quote was interpreted by my opponent to mean states have the right to secede. This quote has nothing to do with that. It says that the federal government cannot take state lands because they dislike said state.

Article 4 Section 1 of the US Constitution;
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

This quote has to do with transparency of documents between states, not secession.

Conclusion

It can be seen that the Supreme Court does in fact interpret the constitution. This gives them the power to outlaw secession if they should see it as unconstitutional. This is what happened in Texas v White. My opponent failed to address my point about the law being the law until another ruling is made regardless of how unconstitutional the ruling is. This makes secession illegal according to Texas v White. It should be noticed that several quotes were either cut or removed in my opponent's conclusion. This would imply that my opponent realized that they were flawed and useless in his case. The quotes that did remain do not have anything to do with the legality or lack of legality in the case of secession. I have refuted all of my opponent's points while he has ignored a few of mine altogether. This debate was on whether or not secession is legal now. It doesn't matter on the circumstances under which a state tries to secede, or a special method of secession. Texas v White ruled secession illegal, therefore, secession is illegal. There has not been sufficient evidence to prove that the ruling of Texas v White is void.


* NOTE: To any voters, please ignore the names of the participants in this debate when you vote. Please vote solely on the debate itself.

[1] http://wiki.answers.com...
[2] http://usgovinfo.about.com...
[3] http://law2.umkc.edu...
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5] http://www.lectlaw.com...
Debate Round No. 3
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
The supreme court only applies to court cases. that was an appeal to authority.
Posted by vince.chiefexec 4 years ago
vince.chiefexec
The Supreme Court "upholds" the Constitution by interpreting it. Its interpretation of the Constitution is supreme, thus upholding and reinforcing the meaning and integrity of the US Constitution.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
wiploc just vote. No one will be upset with you for voting.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
I don't care if wiploc keeps posting what he's posting. I just said that I can understand Dan's point. I want wiploc to vote. The more people that vote, the more accurate the results.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
F-16 @ It was over kill. It wasn't detailed either it was paraphrased; the two are not synonymous; it was however long, because he was going over every argument made in the debate. To me it felt more like he was attacking what I said rather giving a opinion of what I said.

For example;

wiploc said
:: The Constitution left it up to Congress to determine what is "Judicial Powers" ...
:: the laws of the *several* states, ... [emphasis added]
:: shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law
:: in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply."

:Okay.

:: In other words, the judges cannot rewrite the constitution,
:: and cannot change established laws and treaties,

:No, it's not talking about that at all.

What I said was;
:Section 34 of the Judiciary Act states;
:"And be it further enacted, That the laws of the several states, *except where the constitution*[emphasis added], :treaties or statutes of the United States *shall otherwise require*[emphasis added] or provide, shall be regarded as :rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they :apply."

:In other words, the judges cannot rewrite the constitution, and cannot change established laws and :treaties, but the are allowed to establish common law.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Okay, it seems nobody threatened to votebomb him, but the other facts are still true.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
Thank you for clearing that F-16

I was a bit confused because I didn't know it was possible to vote twice.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I don't understand why everyone is being so unfair to Wiploc here. Apparently, he was made to retract his vote on another debate, threatened to be votebombed, and accused of spamming the comments section when he tried to give a detailed RFD and learn how to vote. What is wrong with people?
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
@blackhawk it was a little of both. Te fact that he was spamming the comments, coupled with the fact that he was hacking up what I said in the debate; I felt that it was very rude.

I could understand 1 or 2 comments with full quotes, and his opinion of said quote; but 5 long comments one after the other, in which he essentially was having a 1 sided debate with paraphrased quotes; it's a bit irritating.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
@ Blackhawk and DanT,
Whenever you vote, it shows on the debaters feed. Now let's say you voted and there was a spelling mistake on your vote, you correct it, then click "cast my vote" again, it shows up on the feed of the debater again. Same thing if a voter changes their vote. I had a spelling mistake which I corrected, that is why it shows up on both your feeds that I voted twice.

It has nothing to do with 000ike's vote at all. It will show on your feeds that he voted once and I voted twice.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
DanTblackhawk1331Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Vote withdrawn.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
DanTblackhawk1331Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm sorry about voting against the majority here, but even though I had to work to understand his point, once done he gets the points.
Vote Placed by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
DanTblackhawk1331Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's round 1 was rather confusing as he cited why states may not secede and then refuted those sources. I understand the strategy of self counter-argument, but it is terribly unpersuasive. I recommend you use your case to establish your position and wait to hear your opponent's arguments to refute them. Anyway, Con won that the SCOTUS interprets the consitution, serving as a takeout to the Pro's case.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
DanTblackhawk1331Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con shows that since it is the Supreme courts responsibility to interpret the constitution, and the Supreme court says is constitutional should stand. Con cited sources to show this while Pro cited none in his assertion that the supreme courts upholds rather than interprets the constitution. With the point about supreme court going to Con, Pro does not have any case that states are guaranteed the right to secede by the constitution.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
DanTblackhawk1331Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO's round one was riddled with quotes that he failed to tie back into relevant contentions. PRO essentially lost the argument when he stated that the supreme court does not interpret the Constitution, that was an objectively false statement. S/G goes to Con as well because of the abuse of Boldface in Round 3. PRO, however used a wider range of sources, albeit some were irrelevant. The overall debate consisted of consistent and effective refutation from con, and a weak affirmative case from pro