The Instigator
mc1058
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SocialistAtheistNutjob
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

States rights to nullification of laws, regulations, or executive or congressional acts.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
SocialistAtheistNutjob
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 740 times Debate No: 59834
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

mc1058

Pro

The states rights to nullification of laws, regulations, and executive or congressional acts, except congressional amendments, should be upheld. Reason being, that it guarentees that states have the ultimate freedom within the country. The national government's role when created, was to act as a wall, protecting the states from outside forces, and to make sure the states would not quarrel amongst themselves. Only the amendments were to not be nullified. The national government's reach over the people and states has reached too far. This happened after President Andrew Jackson, like a tyrant, struck down the right for South Carolina to nullify high federal tariffs. This ensured that the national government had power over state governments, the first choking out of freedom from the people. This cannot be continued, we should allow more freedom and local action, and let not this nation be bound by the politics and slowness of action in Washington D.C. bring their purpose back to its roots, and allow states to become more infused into their original role.

http://www.history.com...
SocialistAtheistNutjob

Con

In 1962 the Incorporation Doctrine was applied by the supreme court. The Incorporation Doctrine changed the federal/municipal relationship by making the states follow key parts of the Bill of Rights. This was allowed because of the Due Process clause in the 14th amendment. This was done because states were doing things that endangered people's fundamental rights, and encroaching on federal authority. (http://www.fofweb.com...) [Source url shortened because it was too long. If requested I can post it in the comments].

Learning from states taking steps to stop minorities from voting (poll taxes, poll tests, etc), I argue that states cannot be trusted to have the power of nullification.
(http://abhmuseum.org...)
Debate Round No. 1
mc1058

Pro

Your argument is a good one, however, I do not agree. You said,"States cannot be trusted to have the power of nullification." Based on the idea of that states would take action against minorities for various reasons. As appaling at that sounds, it is the cost of freedom. If people in, say, Arkansas want slavery, then that is their right. Of course, that cannot be implemented because of the amendments, but for the sake of example, Nevertheless, it is their right because that is the people want. Who are we to control people just because we disagree? It is their right because of the freedom we insure. All I want is ultimate freedom within the bounds of reason for people.
SocialistAtheistNutjob

Con

Am I delirious or did I just see Pro equate the ability to have slaves to freedom?

"Based on the idea of that states would take action against minorities for various reasons. As appalling at that sounds, it is the cost of freedom."

What Pro claims is that giving people the ability to have slaves is the cost of freedom. I argue that this is false. The idea that a black man should have to sacrifice his freedom because of what a white man yearns for is despicable. Oxford English Dictionary defines freedom as "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) The second that you deny this to any creed, race, religion, or political sect, you cannot claim that it is the cost of freedom.

"All I want is ultimate freedom within the bounds of reason for people."

This statement directly contradicts the earlier quote I highlighted. Pro claims that he wants "ultimate freedom within the bounds of reason." But how can ultimate freedom exist if 49% of a population can be controlled by 51% of the population?


"If people in, say, Arkansas want slavery, then that is their right."

Who will be enslaved though? Will the be minorities? If so, then that contradicts their right to not be enslaved. Nobody will voluntarily be enslaved by the people of Arkansas. I'd really like Pro to articulate on who will be chosen to lose their ultimate freedoms.
Debate Round No. 2
mc1058

Pro

On your first highlighted quote, I was not speaking on slavery. I was going off what you said in your previous argument.

On your second highlighted quote, I failed to mention my voting plan I would love to have in my state. I never mentioned anything when it comes to voting, which is what Con implies speaking of 49% vs. 51%. May I present a video explaining the alternative vote, which is the best way to appease the most people.
http://www.cgpgrey.com...

On your third highlighted quote, it is not a possibility under the states rights to nullify because, as said before, they would not be able to nullify the 27 amendments, I was using slavery as a example, probbably not the most appropriate example, but an example nonetheless.

On my closing statement. I'd like to stress the importance of the most freedom as possible for the people, this is what state nullification would allow. Any law, regulation, executive action or congressional action would be allowed to become null and void by any state. The states, however would not be able to nullify the 27 amendments, a nationwide draft, or internal military orders. This is the best way to ensure the ultimate freedom for people. The alrernative vote also ensures this where voting is involved.
SocialistAtheistNutjob

Con

As Pro did not articulate any new arguments in round three, I will not either. However, I will raise a concern regarding local politics in my closing statement.

Before my closing argument, I would like it to be noticed that Pro changed his stance between round one and round three. In round one Pro claims "The states rights to nullification of laws, regulations, and executive or congressional acts, except congressional amendments, should be upheld." This is different from Pro's closing statement that "[t]he states, however would not be able to nullify the 27 amendments, a nationwide draft, or internal military orders."

My conclusion statement shall be in the form of a concern. I argue that if states are given too much freedom, the supreme court will not have the jurisdiction to keep the majority in check and protect the minority voices in each state. Discrimination could take place if the federal courts cannot override a decision. Given Pro's failure to address this possibility, I determine that he has not met his burden of proof that the states deserve to be given the power of nullification.

Thanks for a great debate and good luck during voting.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
@mc, I'm personally against the type of liberty you advocate. Even so, it doesn't matter what my outside knowledge may or may not be. It matters what you put in the debate.
Posted by mc1058 3 years ago
mc1058
@SocialistAthiestNutjob im totally calm lol. And im pretty sure I lost tgat one before I even commented.
Posted by SocialistAtheistNutjob 3 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
Mc1058 you've already lost points for your composure in the comments. Jut calm down, he's only trying to help. You can't just assume that somebody has certain knowledge. I don't even remember having a 4th grade history class.
Posted by mc1058 3 years ago
mc1058
@EndarkenedRationalist I think your 4th grade history class shouldve had that covered.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
@mc, you say you explained why it was significant! but all I saw was you say 'because the people have the right to choose.' What about the people who would get put into slavery? Tyranny of the majority is the worst kind of tyranny. But you didn't explain WHY the people have that right or freedom or WHY that was a good thing.
Posted by mc1058 3 years ago
mc1058
@SocialistAthiestNutjob You are right. Apologies to @EndarkenedRationalist.
Posted by mc1058 3 years ago
mc1058
@EndarkenedRationalist I also did explaim why it was significant to the people and made examples. Maybe not the most politically correct examples, but they were examples. Those examples do not reflect my moral or political beliefs.
Posted by SocialistAtheistNutjob 3 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
@mc1058 I understand where you're coming from, but a reader should not have to go to your source to understand what you're talking about. Sources should exist for proof, not to make your arguments for you. You could have just explained the idea of the video.
Posted by mc1058 3 years ago
mc1058
@EndarkenedRationalist I'm pretty sure that if you actually watched the video instead of just reading what I wrote you'd understand why I couldn't type it out jackass.
Posted by SocialistAtheistNutjob 3 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
@Volcanoes13 What the hell? My political stance doesn't have anything to do with this debate. This debate was about the sovereignty of the states, not socialism.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
mc1058SocialistAtheistNutjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: "jackass". Pro had no solid arguments. Con used discrimination, the Bill of Rghts, and the SCOTUS.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
mc1058SocialistAtheistNutjobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: countering votebomb; pro need not have conduct and S & G points. Con also used the Incorp. Doctrine Argument that was irrefuted
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
mc1058SocialistAtheistNutjobTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Let's get a non-vote bomb in here. PRO's position, as CON demonstrated has severe contradictions in it, even without the major, major problems of having states be stronger than the federal government, such as the right to slavery, which is outlawed by the 13th Amendment anyway. PRO also mentions some voting plan he never explains and instead relies on an entirely outside source to make his case for him. CON pointed out the Incorporation Doctrine, which PRO dropped entirely. All in all, CON successfully rebutted PRO's contentions and prevented PRO from fulfilling his BoP. Arguments go to CON. Sources also go to CON for because PRO used his disingenuously to make his case for him rather than support his case. In the future, PRO, I recommend organising your thoughts and explaining why states should have this power. Why is it significant? What are examples?