Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Broken Promises

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 1:42:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm always hearing people talk about broken promises; as if keeping a campaign promise is a good judge of one's time in office. It's completely absurd to claim that keeping one's campaign promises is a good judge of a presidency.

Take for example, Adolf Hitler. Hitler kept his campaign promise; does that make Hitler a good fuhrer? I think not!

If someone runs a campaign, with the promise to exterminate the Jews (or zionists in modern argot), would you say they were a good President for fulfilling said promise?

Should we not base the merit of their presidency on the quality of what they have done, rather than the quantity?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 1:44:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2012 1:42:19 PM, DanT wrote:
I'm always hearing people talk about broken promises; as if keeping a campaign promise is a good judge of one's time in office. It's completely absurd to claim that keeping one's campaign promises is a good judge of a presidency.

Take for example, Adolf Hitler. Hitler kept his campaign promise; does that make Hitler a good fuhrer? I think not!

If someone runs a campaign, with the promise to exterminate the Jews (or zionists in modern argot), would you say they were a good President for fulfilling said promise?

Should we not base the merit of their presidency on the quality of what they have done, rather than the quantity?

We should judge both.

If a presidential candidate says deficit spending is stealing from our children, and promises not to do it, then goes ahead and does it it is absolutely a real issue.

Especially when they start making promises about what they will do this time around.

Just because someone tells the truth doesn't mean they are the best choice, it just means you can trust them to do what they say they will do.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 4:48:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's a bad example because usually when today we criticise leaders on the basis of their promises, we're talking about democracy. They are CHOSEN as representatives because of their promises. Thus if they do not fulfill their promises, that is a dereliction of duly right there. Their promises reflects the public want, and since a democracy is FOR the people- they should fulfill it in order to be a good presidency.
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 5:12:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2012 1:42:19 PM, DanT wrote:
I'm always hearing people talk about broken promises; as if keeping a campaign promise is a good judge of one's time in office. It's completely absurd to claim that keeping one's campaign promises is a good judge of a presidency.

Take for example, Adolf Hitler. Hitler kept his campaign promise; does that make Hitler a good fuhrer? I think not!

If someone runs a campaign, with the promise to exterminate the Jews (or zionists in modern argot), would you say they were a good President for fulfilling said promise?

Should we not base the merit of their presidency on the quality of what they have done, rather than the quantity?

No, they should have quality promises to begin with and only offer a reasonable amount of promises. These promises are the reason they get into office.

Campaign promise fulfillment (or attempt) is the only objective criteria for judging a politician. Regardless of how you feel about a particular issue, you can objectively state that a specific politician did or attempted to do what they promised. Using Hitler, if people wanted the Jews dead, and Hitler didn't fulfill it, would they not have a right to be upset with their leader for breaking said promise?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:00:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 4:48:15 AM, Cermank wrote:
That's a bad example because usually when today we criticise leaders on the basis of their promises, we're talking about democracy. They are CHOSEN as representatives because of their promises.
We are not a Democracy we a are a Republic. Our leaders are contained by rule of law, not majority rule. If the President promises a new pony for everyone if elected, it does not mean he has the authority to fulfill that promise. Think of a student council election, where the student promises no more homework; if elected he has no authority to make that happen, yet the people electing him would like it to happen Furthermore, we vote for electors, not the President; the whole purpose of that is to keep the majority in check, so the President is not elected solely by unconstitutional promises to the majority.
Thus if they do not fulfill their promises, that is a dereliction of duly right there. Their promises reflects the public want, and since a democracy is FOR the people- they should fulfill it in order to be a good presidency.

We are a Republic; like a Democracy sovereignty over the state lies with the people, but unlike a Democracy the state is constrained by rule of law, rather than majority rule. Your point is thus mute.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:02:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:00:17 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:48:15 AM, Cermank wrote:
That's a bad example because usually when today we criticise leaders on the basis of their promises, we're talking about democracy. They are CHOSEN as representatives because of their promises.
We are not a Democracy we a are a Republic. Our leaders are contained by rule of law, not majority rule. If the President promises a new pony for everyone if elected, it does not mean he has the authority to fulfill that promise. Think of a student council election, where the student promises no more homework; if elected he has no authority to make that happen, yet the people electing him would like it to happen Furthermore, we vote for electors, not the President; the whole purpose of that is to keep the majority in check, so the President is not elected solely by unconstitutional promises to the majority.
Thus if they do not fulfill their promises, that is a dereliction of duly right there. Their promises reflects the public want, and since a democracy is FOR the people- they should fulfill it in order to be a good presidency.

We are a Republic; like a Democracy sovereignty over the state lies with the people, but unlike a Democracy the state is constrained by rule of law, rather than majority rule. Your point is thus mute.

The president has a lot of political power that he could use to get that passed into law.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:13:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 5:12:33 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/8/2012 1:42:19 PM, DanT wrote:
I'm always hearing people talk about broken promises; as if keeping a campaign promise is a good judge of one's time in office. It's completely absurd to claim that keeping one's campaign promises is a good judge of a presidency.

Take for example, Adolf Hitler. Hitler kept his campaign promise; does that make Hitler a good fuhrer? I think not!

If someone runs a campaign, with the promise to exterminate the Jews (or zionists in modern argot), would you say they were a good President for fulfilling said promise?

Should we not base the merit of their presidency on the quality of what they have done, rather than the quantity?

No, they should have quality promises to begin with and only offer a reasonable amount of promises. These promises are the reason they get into office.

Argumentum ad populum. Simply because the majority favors a promise, does not make the promise of good quality.
Campaign promise fulfillment (or attempt) is the only objective criteria for judging a politician.
Uh, what about job performance, as stipulated by law (the constitution). If a President fulfills all of their campaign promises, but half-way through the admin China decides to invade America, and ends up with the whole western half of the continent, would you say that the President did a good job as commander-in-chief?
Regardless of how you feel about a particular issue, you can objectively state that a specific politician did or attempted to do what they promised.
I can objectively say Hitler fulfilled his promise to exterminate the Jews; I personally think the extermination of the Jews was one of the most immoral events in modern history, but that's just me being subjective.
Using Hitler, if people wanted the Jews dead, and Hitler didn't fulfill it, would they not have a right to be upset with their leader for breaking said promise?
Yeah they could be disappointed that heir monstrous blood lust was not quenched, but it would have made Hitler a better leader if he did not exterminate the Jews; as the figure head of Germany what he does is reflective of Germany. If the German Fuhrer does something that immoral, all Germans would be and was painted as Monsters because of it; regardless of their part in the atrocities.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:14:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:02:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:00:17 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:48:15 AM, Cermank wrote:
That's a bad example because usually when today we criticise leaders on the basis of their promises, we're talking about democracy. They are CHOSEN as representatives because of their promises.
We are not a Democracy we a are a Republic. Our leaders are contained by rule of law, not majority rule. If the President promises a new pony for everyone if elected, it does not mean he has the authority to fulfill that promise. Think of a student council election, where the student promises no more homework; if elected he has no authority to make that happen, yet the people electing him would like it to happen Furthermore, we vote for electors, not the President; the whole purpose of that is to keep the majority in check, so the President is not elected solely by unconstitutional promises to the majority.
Thus if they do not fulfill their promises, that is a dereliction of duly right there. Their promises reflects the public want, and since a democracy is FOR the people- they should fulfill it in order to be a good presidency.

We are a Republic; like a Democracy sovereignty over the state lies with the people, but unlike a Democracy the state is constrained by rule of law, rather than majority rule. Your point is thus mute.

The president has a lot of political power that he could use to get that passed into law.

Constitutionally he can't do it. I don't care if he can influence congress into passing it, congress can't legally do it either.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:19:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:14:32 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:02:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:00:17 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:48:15 AM, Cermank wrote:
That's a bad example because usually when today we criticise leaders on the basis of their promises, we're talking about democracy. They are CHOSEN as representatives because of their promises.
We are not a Democracy we a are a Republic. Our leaders are contained by rule of law, not majority rule. If the President promises a new pony for everyone if elected, it does not mean he has the authority to fulfill that promise. Think of a student council election, where the student promises no more homework; if elected he has no authority to make that happen, yet the people electing him would like it to happen Furthermore, we vote for electors, not the President; the whole purpose of that is to keep the majority in check, so the President is not elected solely by unconstitutional promises to the majority.
Thus if they do not fulfill their promises, that is a dereliction of duly right there. Their promises reflects the public want, and since a democracy is FOR the people- they should fulfill it in order to be a good presidency.

We are a Republic; like a Democracy sovereignty over the state lies with the people, but unlike a Democracy the state is constrained by rule of law, rather than majority rule. Your point is thus mute.

The president has a lot of political power that he could use to get that passed into law.

Constitutionally he can't do it. I don't care if he can influence congress into passing it, congress can't legally do it either.

How does congress not have the authority to pass the law? Based on other supreme court rulings, it would unlikely be unconstitutional.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:27:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:19:13 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:14:32 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:02:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:00:17 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:48:15 AM, Cermank wrote:
That's a bad example because usually when today we criticise leaders on the basis of their promises, we're talking about democracy. They are CHOSEN as representatives because of their promises.
We are not a Democracy we a are a Republic. Our leaders are contained by rule of law, not majority rule. If the President promises a new pony for everyone if elected, it does not mean he has the authority to fulfill that promise. Think of a student council election, where the student promises no more homework; if elected he has no authority to make that happen, yet the people electing him would like it to happen Furthermore, we vote for electors, not the President; the whole purpose of that is to keep the majority in check, so the President is not elected solely by unconstitutional promises to the majority.
Thus if they do not fulfill their promises, that is a dereliction of duly right there. Their promises reflects the public want, and since a democracy is FOR the people- they should fulfill it in order to be a good presidency.

We are a Republic; like a Democracy sovereignty over the state lies with the people, but unlike a Democracy the state is constrained by rule of law, rather than majority rule. Your point is thus mute.

The president has a lot of political power that he could use to get that passed into law.

Constitutionally he can't do it. I don't care if he can influence congress into passing it, congress can't legally do it either.

How does congress not have the authority to pass the law? Based on other supreme court rulings, it would unlikely be unconstitutional.

The Supreme court only has judicial authority; their interpretation of the constitution has no bearing on congress. Take Miranda rights for example; the ruling is enforced by the executive branch, because otherwise the courts would throw out the case. The courts have no authority to enforce their own rulings outside of the court room.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof...

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." ~ US constitution.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:38:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:27:34 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:19:13 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:14:32 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:02:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:00:17 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:48:15 AM, Cermank wrote:
That's a bad example because usually when today we criticise leaders on the basis of their promises, we're talking about democracy. They are CHOSEN as representatives because of their promises.
We are not a Democracy we a are a Republic. Our leaders are contained by rule of law, not majority rule. If the President promises a new pony for everyone if elected, it does not mean he has the authority to fulfill that promise. Think of a student council election, where the student promises no more homework; if elected he has no authority to make that happen, yet the people electing him would like it to happen Furthermore, we vote for electors, not the President; the whole purpose of that is to keep the majority in check, so the President is not elected solely by unconstitutional promises to the majority.
Thus if they do not fulfill their promises, that is a dereliction of duly right there. Their promises reflects the public want, and since a democracy is FOR the people- they should fulfill it in order to be a good presidency.

We are a Republic; like a Democracy sovereignty over the state lies with the people, but unlike a Democracy the state is constrained by rule of law, rather than majority rule. Your point is thus mute.

The president has a lot of political power that he could use to get that passed into law.

Constitutionally he can't do it. I don't care if he can influence congress into passing it, congress can't legally do it either.

How does congress not have the authority to pass the law? Based on other supreme court rulings, it would unlikely be unconstitutional.

The Supreme court only has judicial authority; their interpretation of the constitution has no bearing on congress. Take Miranda rights for example; the ruling is enforced by the executive branch, because otherwise the courts would throw out the case. The courts have no authority to enforce their own rulings outside of the court room.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof...

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." ~ US constitution.

Would obviously fall under the commerce clause under modern day ruling. Of course, the executive branch could just say "f*ck the supreme court ruling", but such an action would wildly get punishment through political action today. Presidents have gotten away with it before though, Andrew Jackson famously said that: ""John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:39:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If there is no protest among citizens and the Supreme Court doesn't rule against it, the Congress can pass any law it wants.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:46:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:38:49 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:27:34 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:19:13 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:14:32 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:02:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:00:17 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:48:15 AM, Cermank wrote:
That's a bad example because usually when today we criticise leaders on the basis of their promises, we're talking about democracy. They are CHOSEN as representatives because of their promises.
We are not a Democracy we a are a Republic. Our leaders are contained by rule of law, not majority rule. If the President promises a new pony for everyone if elected, it does not mean he has the authority to fulfill that promise. Think of a student council election, where the student promises no more homework; if elected he has no authority to make that happen, yet the people electing him would like it to happen Furthermore, we vote for electors, not the President; the whole purpose of that is to keep the majority in check, so the President is not elected solely by unconstitutional promises to the majority.
Thus if they do not fulfill their promises, that is a dereliction of duly right there. Their promises reflects the public want, and since a democracy is FOR the people- they should fulfill it in order to be a good presidency.

We are a Republic; like a Democracy sovereignty over the state lies with the people, but unlike a Democracy the state is constrained by rule of law, rather than majority rule. Your point is thus mute.

The president has a lot of political power that he could use to get that passed into law.

Constitutionally he can't do it. I don't care if he can influence congress into passing it, congress can't legally do it either.

How does congress not have the authority to pass the law? Based on other supreme court rulings, it would unlikely be unconstitutional.

The Supreme court only has judicial authority; their interpretation of the constitution has no bearing on congress. Take Miranda rights for example; the ruling is enforced by the executive branch, because otherwise the courts would throw out the case. The courts have no authority to enforce their own rulings outside of the court room.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof...

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." ~ US constitution.

Would obviously fall under the commerce clause under modern day ruling. Of course, the executive branch could just say "f*ck the supreme court ruling", but such an action would wildly get punishment through political action today.

Presidents have gotten away with it before though, Andrew Jackson famously said that: ""John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

and rightly so. The constitution does not create Judicial supremacy, it creates legislative supremacy. We are a republic, not an oligarchical Kritarchy; if the supreme court had absolute authority over constitutional interpretation, in all instances in and our of court, than sovereignty over the state would rest in the hands of the courts, not the people. We are a Republic, so the government is constrained by law; that includes laws passed by congress, but most importantly it includes the constitution, which is the supreme statutory law of the land. The Supreme court's judicial review is the supreme case/common law of the land, and statutory law trumps case/common law.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:48:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:39:55 AM, darkkermit wrote:
If there is no protest among citizens and the Supreme Court doesn't rule against it, the Congress can pass any law it wants.

No it can't. That mentality has made our government illegitimate.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:50:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If a candidate promises to do something that is bad for the country, or downright evil, and the voters elect him on that basis then the voters are responsible for bad acts. However, if the candidate lies to get elected, then the politician should be held accountable and booted from office.

Consider President Obama's promise to close GITMO. He tried to do it, but was blocked by Congress, despite Democrats having firm control of the Senate and the House. So I think Obama gets a pass on not keeping his promise. He tried hard, but failed.

President Obama also promised a new era of open politics. Within weeks he was cutting secret deals, giving kickbacks to selected Senators, making secret deals with health insurers, and cutting special provisions for his union supporters. It was fully within his power to keep his promise, so Obama lied.

Obama also promise to propose comprehensive immigration reform bill in his first year in office. Immigration rform came within a few votes of passing under Bush, but Democrats killed it by putting in a provision that unions wanted to eliminate competition from immigrant labor. Obama had the Senate supermajority in his first year. He failed to introduce an immigration bill. He lied because he had the power to get it done and failed to do so. Therefore he should be held accountable.

By contrast, Bush promised a prescription drug entitlement for Medicare. Many Republicans were opposed, but he got it done by working with Democrats to fulfill the campaign promise.

Promises count for a lot in a democracy, and voters should hold politicians accountable.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:51:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:48:37 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:39:55 AM, darkkermit wrote:
If there is no protest among citizens and the Supreme Court doesn't rule against it, the Congress can pass any law it wants.

No it can't. That mentality has made our government illegitimate.

The government only receives legitimacy based on its people. There's no moral gods for what is "legitimate" or "illegitimate". There just is. The constitution is only a piece of paper that has value because we give it value.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:53:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:46:46 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:38:49 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:27:34 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:19:13 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:14:32 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:02:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:00:17 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:48:15 AM, Cermank wrote:
That's a bad example because usually when today we criticise leaders on the basis of their promises, we're talking about democracy. They are CHOSEN as representatives because of their promises.
We are not a Democracy we a are a Republic. Our leaders are contained by rule of law, not majority rule. If the President promises a new pony for everyone if elected, it does not mean he has the authority to fulfill that promise. Think of a student council election, where the student promises no more homework; if elected he has no authority to make that happen, yet the people electing him would like it to happen Furthermore, we vote for electors, not the President; the whole purpose of that is to keep the majority in check, so the President is not elected solely by unconstitutional promises to the majority.
Thus if they do not fulfill their promises, that is a dereliction of duly right there. Their promises reflects the public want, and since a democracy is FOR the people- they should fulfill it in order to be a good presidency.

We are a Republic; like a Democracy sovereignty over the state lies with the people, but unlike a Democracy the state is constrained by rule of law, rather than majority rule. Your point is thus mute.

The president has a lot of political power that he could use to get that passed into law.

Constitutionally he can't do it. I don't care if he can influence congress into passing it, congress can't legally do it either.

How does congress not have the authority to pass the law? Based on other supreme court rulings, it would unlikely be unconstitutional.

The Supreme court only has judicial authority; their interpretation of the constitution has no bearing on congress. Take Miranda rights for example; the ruling is enforced by the executive branch, because otherwise the courts would throw out the case. The courts have no authority to enforce their own rulings outside of the court room.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof...

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." ~ US constitution.

Would obviously fall under the commerce clause under modern day ruling. Of course, the executive branch could just say "f*ck the supreme court ruling", but such an action would wildly get punishment through political action today.

Presidents have gotten away with it before though, Andrew Jackson famously said that: ""John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

and rightly so. The constitution does not create Judicial supremacy, it creates legislative supremacy. We are a republic, not an oligarchical Kritarchy; if the supreme court had absolute authority over constitutional interpretation, in all instances in and our of court, than sovereignty over the state would rest in the hands of the courts, not the people. We are a Republic, so the government is constrained by law; that includes laws passed by congress, but most importantly it includes the constitution, which is the supreme statutory law of the land. The Supreme court's judicial review is the supreme case/common law of the land, and statutory law trumps case/common law.

Seriously, so the Supreme Courts job is to interpret the constitution, but you think the congress and president can trump the Supreme Court. All while saying that they are bound by the constitution, even though there's no incentive to keep them bound EXCEPT the supreme court. If the incentive is the people will keep them in line, will then you are just going back into mob rule which your against.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:55:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:50:40 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
If a candidate promises to do something that is bad for the country, or downright evil, and the voters elect him on that basis then the voters are responsible for bad acts. However, if the candidate lies to get elected, then the politician should be held accountable and booted from office.

Consider President Obama's promise to close GITMO. He tried to do it, but was blocked by Congress, despite Democrats having firm control of the Senate and the House. So I think Obama gets a pass on not keeping his promise. He tried hard, but failed.

President Obama also promised a new era of open politics. Within weeks he was cutting secret deals, giving kickbacks to selected Senators, making secret deals with health insurers, and cutting special provisions for his union supporters. It was fully within his power to keep his promise, so Obama lied.

Obama also promise to propose comprehensive immigration reform bill in his first year in office. Immigration rform came within a few votes of passing under Bush, but Democrats killed it by putting in a provision that unions wanted to eliminate competition from immigrant labor. Obama had the Senate supermajority in his first year. He failed to introduce an immigration bill. He lied because he had the power to get it done and failed to do so. Therefore he should be held accountable.

By contrast, Bush promised a prescription drug entitlement for Medicare. Many Republicans were opposed, but he got it done by working with Democrats to fulfill the campaign promise.

Promises count for a lot in a democracy, and voters should hold politicians accountable.

A.) We are not a Democracy
B.) We have an electoral college
C.) Not all voters vote the same
D.) Only the voters know who they voted for, unless they choose to share.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 11:04:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:51:00 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:48:37 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:39:55 AM, darkkermit wrote:
If there is no protest among citizens and the Supreme Court doesn't rule against it, the Congress can pass any law it wants.

No it can't. That mentality has made our government illegitimate.

The government only receives legitimacy based on its people. There's no moral gods for what is "legitimate" or "illegitimate". There just is. The constitution is only a piece of paper that has value because we give it value.

The constitution is a contract regarding the organization and principles of our government. When that contract is violated the government becomes illegitimate.

The state's legitimacy is also based on the people; not just the majority, but rather the entire community. If a single individual feels that the state does not represent him (not the politicians, the state), than the individual has a right to renounce allegiance to the state. If the majority feels the state is illegitimate, they have a right, and duty to alter or abolish the state, and if the minority feels the state is illegitimate they have a right to secede, severing their political ties in order to form their own state.

The constitution is part of the state's social contract with the people; it outlines the principles of how the government is to be run and organized. If the constitution is violated, so too is the social contract.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 11:10:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 11:04:30 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:51:00 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:48:37 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:39:55 AM, darkkermit wrote:
If there is no protest among citizens and the Supreme Court doesn't rule against it, the Congress can pass any law it wants.

No it can't. That mentality has made our government illegitimate.

The government only receives legitimacy based on its people. There's no moral gods for what is "legitimate" or "illegitimate". There just is. The constitution is only a piece of paper that has value because we give it value.

The constitution is a contract regarding the organization and principles of our government. When that contract is violated the government becomes illegitimate.

I didn't sign the constitution? Why should a piece of paper that was signed hundreds of years ago determine the legitimacy of government?

The state's legitimacy is also based on the people; not just the majority, but rather the entire community. If a single individual feels that the state does not represent him (not the politicians, the state), than the individual has a right to renounce allegiance to the state.

Good luck with that. By the same token, he loses his rights to obtain defense protection from the government, and thus the government can attack him. Otherwise, why would you need government in the first place?

If the majority feels the state is illegitimate, they have a right, and duty to alter or abolish the state, and if the minority feels the state is illegitimate they have a right to secede, severing their political ties in order to form their own state.

See above analysis.

The constitution is part of the state's social contract with the people; it outlines the principles of how the government is to be run and organized. If the constitution is violated, so too is the social contract.

See above on that I didn't sign anything.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 11:18:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:53:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:

Seriously, so the Supreme Courts job is to interpret the constitution, but you think the congress and president can trump the Supreme Court.

Yes, just like the President and court can trump congress, and congress and the court can trump the president.

All while saying that they are bound by the constitution,
yes

even though there's no incentive to keep them bound EXCEPT the supreme court.

How so? That's a pretty bold assumption.

If the incentive is the people will keep them in line, will then you are just going back into mob rule which your against.

No, there are 5 "incentives";

1.) the President
2.) the Congress
3.) the supreme court
4.) the states
5.) the people

Each branch of government checks each other, with a series of checks and balances.

The federal government shares sovereignty with the states, but the states hold more power than the federal government; the Federal government's powers are specifically enumerated, and all other powers belong to the states. The federal government has no geographical jurisdiction, they only have jurisdiction over interstate and international affairs (such as the internet, the high seas, interstate commerce, international commerce, the military, diplomacy, and so on). The member states are the only ones with geographical jurisdiction. Because the Federal government has no jurisdiction within a state, the state can prohibit enforcement of unconstitutional laws within a state, and can even secede if necessary.

Sovereignty over the state rests in the hands of the people, as previously mentioned; therefore the people have control over the state.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 11:24:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 11:18:02 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:53:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:

Seriously, so the Supreme Courts job is to interpret the constitution, but you think the congress and president can trump the Supreme Court.

Yes, just like the President and court can trump congress, and congress and the court can trump the president.

All while saying that they are bound by the constitution,
yes

even though there's no incentive to keep them bound EXCEPT the supreme court.

How so? That's a pretty bold assumption.

No its not. Where's the incentive to keep constitional. The only incentive is that the people will rebel through either force or elections. As long as the people don't care about the Constitution, it holds no power.


If the incentive is the people will keep them in line, will then you are just going back into mob rule which your against.

No, there are 5 "incentives";

1.) the President
2.) the Congress
: 3.) the supreme court
4.) the states
5.) the people

You've already said that the supreme court has no power over statury law. Which while false, would give them no real "check" on power. The states as a check on power is a joke because no state would seriously consider it or succeed in session for that matter. The federal government is way too powerful. And the step of "the people" is also mob rule which you complain about.

Each branch of government checks each other, with a series of checks and balances.

The federal government shares sovereignty with the states, but the states hold more power than the federal government; the Federal government's powers are specifically enumerated, and all other powers belong to the states. The federal government has no geographical jurisdiction, they only have jurisdiction over interstate and international affairs (such as the internet, the high seas, interstate commerce, international commerce, the military, diplomacy, and so on). The member states are the only ones with geographical jurisdiction. Because the Federal government has no jurisdiction within a state, the state can prohibit enforcement of unconstitutional laws within a state, and can even secede if necessary.

Sovereignty over the state rests in the hands of the people, as previously mentioned; therefore the people have control over the state.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 11:41:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 11:24:41 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:18:02 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:53:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:

Seriously, so the Supreme Courts job is to interpret the constitution, but you think the congress and president can trump the Supreme Court.

Yes, just like the President and court can trump congress, and congress and the court can trump the president.

All while saying that they are bound by the constitution,
yes

even though there's no incentive to keep them bound EXCEPT the supreme court.

How so? That's a pretty bold assumption.

No its not. Where's the incentive to keep constitional. The only incentive is that the people will rebel through either force or elections. As long as the people don't care about the Constitution, it holds no power.

Not true; again you are making bold assumptions.


If the incentive is the people will keep them in line, will then you are just going back into mob rule which your against.

No, there are 5 "incentives";

1.) the President
2.) the Congress
: 3.) the supreme court
4.) the states
5.) the people

You've already said that the supreme court has no power over statury law.
Not what I said. I said they have no power outside of the courtroom. Hell I even gave an example (Miranda rights) of how the supreme court can enforce their rulings from the bench.

Which while false, would give them no real "check" on power. The states as a check on power is a joke because no state would seriously consider it or succeed in session for that matter.

Tell that to California, which has nullified federal laws against medical marijuana within their state's boarders.

Tell that to Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia; all of which have seceded in the past.

Or tell it to the 21 states that recently threatened secession.

The federal government is way too powerful. And the step of "the people" is also mob rule which you complain about.

No it's not. Mob rule is 51% of the population governing the other 49%.

Each branch of government checks each other, with a series of checks and balances.

The federal government shares sovereignty with the states, but the states hold more power than the federal government; the Federal government's powers are specifically enumerated, and all other powers belong to the states. The federal government has no geographical jurisdiction, they only have jurisdiction over interstate and international affairs (such as the internet, the high seas, interstate commerce, international commerce, the military, diplomacy, and so on). The member states are the only ones with geographical jurisdiction. Because the Federal government has no jurisdiction within a state, the state can prohibit enforcement of unconstitutional laws within a state, and can even secede if necessary.

Sovereignty over the state rests in the hands of the people, as previously mentioned; therefore the people have control over the state.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 12:11:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 11:41:46 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:24:41 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:18:02 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:53:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:

Seriously, so the Supreme Courts job is to interpret the constitution, but you think the congress and president can trump the Supreme Court.

Yes, just like the President and court can trump congress, and congress and the court can trump the president.

All while saying that they are bound by the constitution,
yes

even though there's no incentive to keep them bound EXCEPT the supreme court.

How so? That's a pretty bold assumption.

No its not. Where's the incentive to keep constitional. The only incentive is that the people will rebel through either force or elections. As long as the people don't care about the Constitution, it holds no power.

Not true; again you are making bold assumptions.


If the incentive is the people will keep them in line, will then you are just going back into mob rule which your against.

No, there are 5 "incentives";

1.) the President
2.) the Congress
: 3.) the supreme court
4.) the states
5.) the people

You've already said that the supreme court has no power over statury law.
Not what I said. I said they have no power outside of the courtroom. Hell I even gave an example (Miranda rights) of how the supreme court can enforce their rulings from the bench.

Which while false, would give them no real "check" on power. The states as a check on power is a joke because no state would seriously consider it or succeed in session for that matter.

Tell that to California, which has nullified federal laws against medical marijuana within their state's boarders.

And look how its going (video).

Tell that to Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia; all of which have seceded in the past.

And failed.

Or tell it to the 21 states that recently threatened secession.


Not even close. Title says "declaring sovereignty" which isn't secession. If states were serious about threatening secession, this would be national news.



The federal government is way too powerful. And the step of "the people" is also mob rule which you complain about.

No it's not. Mob rule is 51% of the population governing the other 49%.

So technically not because of how screwy congress representation is. But whatever, I don't see how minority rule is better than mob rule.


Each branch of government checks each other, with a series of checks and balances.

The federal government shares sovereignty with the states, but the states hold more power than the federal government; the Federal government's powers are specifically enumerated, and all other powers belong to the states. The federal government has no geographical jurisdiction, they only have jurisdiction over interstate and international affairs (such as the internet, the high seas, interstate commerce, international commerce, the military, diplomacy, and so on). The member states are the only ones with geographical jurisdiction. Because the Federal government has no jurisdiction within a state, the state can prohibit enforcement of unconstitutional laws within a state, and can even secede if necessary.

Sovereignty over the state rests in the hands of the people, as previously mentioned; therefore the people have control over the state.

The US national government is so much powerful than state governments that you'd have to be kidding me that the states have any real power against them.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 9:02:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:00:17 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:48:15 AM, Cermank wrote:
That's a bad example because usually when today we criticise leaders on the basis of their promises, we're talking about democracy. They are CHOSEN as representatives because of their promises.

We are not a Democracy we a are a Republic. Our leaders are contained by rule of law, not majority rule. If the President promises a new pony for everyone if elected, it does not mean he has the authority to fulfill that promise. Think of a student council election, where the student promises no more homework; if elected he has no authority to make that happen, yet the people electing him would like it to happen Furthermore, we vote for electors, not the President; the whole purpose of that is to keep the majority in check, so the President is not elected solely by unconstitutional promises to the majority.

Don't we have the right to judge him based on non-fulfillment of that promise, don't we? This is disregarding the discussion going on whether or not he can actually fulfill that promise in the capacity of being a president. Plus, I didn't realise the discussion was in context of America.

Thus if they do not fulfill their promises, that is a dereliction of duly right there. Their promises reflects the public want, and since a democracy is FOR the people- they should fulfill it in order to be a good presidency.

We are a Republic; like a Democracy sovereignty over the state lies with the people, but unlike a Democracy the state is constrained by rule of law, rather than majority rule. Your point is thus mute.

And people expect a person aspiring to be the president/ prime minister of a country to know what promises would be constrained by the constitution. Thus making unfulfillable promises is a good parameter to judge their term.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 9:37:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Has Dan pulled out his pocket copy of the Constitution again?

*rings alarum bell*

Man the lifeboats! Man the lifeboats!
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:33:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 12:11:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:41:46 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:24:41 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:18:02 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 10:53:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:

Seriously, so the Supreme Courts job is to interpret the constitution, but you think the congress and president can trump the Supreme Court.

Yes, just like the President and court can trump congress, and congress and the court can trump the president.

All while saying that they are bound by the constitution,
yes

even though there's no incentive to keep them bound EXCEPT the supreme court.

How so? That's a pretty bold assumption.

No its not. Where's the incentive to keep constitional. The only incentive is that the people will rebel through either force or elections. As long as the people don't care about the Constitution, it holds no power.

Not true; again you are making bold assumptions.


If the incentive is the people will keep them in line, will then you are just going back into mob rule which your against.

No, there are 5 "incentives";

1.) the President
2.) the Congress
: 3.) the supreme court
4.) the states
5.) the people

You've already said that the supreme court has no power over statury law.
Not what I said. I said they have no power outside of the courtroom. Hell I even gave an example (Miranda rights) of how the supreme court can enforce their rulings from the bench.

Which while false, would give them no real "check" on power. The states as a check on power is a joke because no state would seriously consider it or succeed in session for that matter.

Tell that to California, which has nullified federal laws against medical marijuana within their state's boarders.

And look how its going (video).

He is using federal resources unconstitutionally. During prohibition the governor of NY had the cars of federal agents towed and impounded during a raid on a speak easy. The federal government has no geographical jurisdiction.



Tell that to Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia; all of which have seceded in the past.

And failed.


No, they were just conquored. After the civil war they had to regain citizenship by swearing allegiance to the US
Or tell it to the 21 states that recently threatened secession.


Not even close. Title says "declaring sovereignty" which isn't secession. If states were serious about threatening secession, this would be national news.

Well my state of NH passed a bill that gave a list of conditions that would lead use to secede from the union.


The federal government is way too powerful. And the step of "the people" is also mob rule which you complain about.

No it's not. Mob rule is 51% of the population governing the other 49%.

So technically not because of how screwy congress representation is. But whatever, I don't see how minority rule is better than mob rule.

Did I say minority rule? No, I did not! I said rule of law.

Each branch of government checks each other, with a series of checks and balances.

The federal government shares sovereignty with the states, but the states hold more power than the federal government; the Federal government's powers are specifically enumerated, and all other powers belong to the states. The federal government has no geographical jurisdiction, they only have jurisdiction over interstate and international affairs (such as the internet, the high seas, interstate commerce, international commerce, the military, diplomacy, and so on). The member states are the only ones with geographical jurisdiction. Because the Federal government has no jurisdiction within a state, the state can prohibit enforcement of unconstitutional laws within a state, and can even secede if necessary.

Sovereignty over the state rests in the hands of the people, as previously mentioned; therefore the people have control over the state.

The US national government is so much powerful than state governments that you'd have to be kidding me that the states have any real power against them.

Wanna debate me on that?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:33:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Brosef, would it necessarily have been better if Hitler had deviated from his campaign promises? What if he'd extended his racism to brown-haired, browned-eyed whites? All else being equal, it must be admitted that a proper delegate should fulfill any promises he made to the best of his abilities. The problem is rather our electoral system in which people with barely the knowledge to participate in decisions for their community anonymously enter voting booths. It matters little whether they tear up at Romney's Norman Rockwell nostalgia or appreciate Clinton's carefully selected numerals, there's a gap. It should be filled with a nested hierarchy.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 10:38:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:33:18 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
Brosef, would it necessarily have been better if Hitler had deviated from his campaign promises? What if he'd extended his racism to brown-haired, browned-eyed whites? All else being equal, it must be admitted that a proper delegate should fulfill any promises he made to the best of his abilities. The problem is rather our electoral system in which people with barely the knowledge to participate in decisions for their community anonymously enter voting booths. It matters little whether they tear up at Romney's Norman Rockwell nostalgia or appreciate Clinton's carefully selected numerals, there's a gap. It should be filled with a nested hierarchy.

Again, we vote for electors, not the President.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 11:09:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 10:33:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 12:11:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The US national government is so much powerful than state governments that you'd have to be kidding me that the states have any real power against them.

Wanna debate me on that?

challenge sent
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle