• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitutional Flaws

OK, I am game. What would it take?
It will be the presentation of a more sophisticated government separation theory. It will be a three-level constitutional convention series starting at the municipal level and then graduating to the state level, and then the federal. It will be called the United States Fourth Continental Congress.
 
It will be the presentation of a more sophisticated government separation theory. It will be a three-level constitutional convention series starting at the municipal level and then graduating to the state level, and then the federal. It will be called the United States Fourth Continental Congress.

the last people I want monkeying around with our constitution are a bunch of yahoos at the municipal and state level. Leave this to the experts.
 
Yeah, well, you see, it is not known who the experts are, but we do know that they all live in municipal districts.

And did you not notice that municipal politics is more important the national politics.
 
Yeah, well, you see, it is not known who the experts are, but we do know that they all live in municipal districts.

And did you not notice that municipal politics is more important the national politics.

If by municipal experts you mean folks like Sandy Levinson or Edwin Chemirinsky then by all means, come on down. But if you mean local hacks, forget it. As for municipal politics being more important, that has no bearing on this at all and is immaterial.
 
No, but they have the Parliamentary system you want, already in place.

And that is SO much a reason to move

Maybe you need to move to Florida...they have Disney World there
Or Alaska for the snow ?

You seem to regard superfluous things as a reason to move....
 
And that is SO much a reason to move

Maybe you need to move to Florida...they have Disney World there
Or Alaska for the snow ?

You seem to regard superfluous things as a reason to move....
Hey, it is YOU bitching about how good the Parliamentary government is, and that we need to change ours to become it. I just told you how to solve your problem, easily. You libs are too lazy to follow the procedures in place to make changes to our form of government (which I think is doing just fine, as long as we keep liberals out of positions to change our government on their whim).
 
Hey, it is YOU bitching about how good the Parliamentary government is...

And it is YOU suggesting that is a reason to move

....and that we need to change ours to become it.

Need ? No
Gain great benefit Yes

I just told you how to solve your problem, easily.

By adopting flimsy, superfluous reasons to move

You libs are too lazy to follow the procedures in place to make changes to our form of government (which I think is doing just fine, as long as we keep liberals out of positions to change our government on their whim).

You conservatives are too fickle and if you don't like things...you move on rather than stay put and work hard to make things better
That's why people respect Joe Biden and despise Donald Trump. Don't like your marriage, get a new one....
 
And it is YOU suggesting that is a reason to move



Need ? No
Gain great benefit Yes



By adopting flimsy, superfluous reasons to move



You conservatives are too fickle and if you don't like things...you move on rather than stay put and work hard to make things better
That's why people respect Joe Biden and despise Donald Trump. Don't like your marriage, get a new one....
No, I did not "suggest that is a reason to move" - you are the one wanting that form of government, so it is you that needed to know where to go.

We've been married for longer than you are old, little guy.

The rest of your post is just BS.
 
No, I did not "suggest that is a reason to move" - you are the one wanting that form of government, so it is you that needed to know where to go.

Not a reason to move...?

But you said "it is you that needed to know where to go."
So I "need" to go there...for what reason ?
When you say that "how good the Parliamentary government is..."....is NOT a reason

You're so confused
What is the reason then ?

We've been married for longer than you are old, little guy.

Who said anything about marriage ?
More confusion from you

The rest of your post is just BS.

How would you know, give the confused state of your mind ?
 
Not a reason to move...?

But you said "it is you that needed to know where to go."
So I "need" to go there...for what reason ?
When you say that "how good the Parliamentary government is..."....is NOT a reason

You're so confused
What is the reason then ?



Who said anything about marriage ?
More confusion from you



How would you know, give the confused state of your mind ?
I have no idea why you think the Parliamentary form of government is superior, but you CLEARLY claimed that in your post that I responded to give you an idea where to go to get WHAT YOU WANT. Stop playing the liberal game that I said anything of the sort.
 
Not a reason to move...?

But you said "it is you that needed to know where to go."
So I "need" to go there...for what reason ?
When you say that "how good the Parliamentary government is..."....is NOT a reason

You're so confused
What is the reason then ?



Who said anything about marriage ?
More confusion from you



How would you know, give the confused state of your mind ?
In Post #260, you said "Don't like your marriage, get a new one...." Try to solve your own confusion before erroneously commenting on someone else's.
 
I have no idea why you think the Parliamentary form of government is superior

I told you - it would prevent the rise of a tyrant like Trump and the political inertia created when you get a lame duck president like Obama was in his 2nd term
It's also the preferred style of government of almost every Western democracy in the world, whereas the US presidential style is is used by tin-pot totalitarian presidents in third world countries

...but you CLEARLY claimed that in your post that I responded to give you an idea where to go to get WHAT YOU WANT

So you're back to saying the style of government is a reason to move in your opinion ?

If not, why else suggest it ?
You are very confused

In Post #260, you said "Don't like your marriage, get a new one...."

That was sarcasm to illustrate your bail & most on mentality.
More confusion from you.
 
I told you - it would prevent the rise of a tyrant like Trump and the political inertia created when you get a lame duck president like Obama was in his 2nd term
It's also the preferred style of government of almost every Western democracy in the world, whereas the US presidential style is is used by tin-pot totalitarian presidents in third world countries



So you're back to saying the style of government is a reason to move in your opinion ?

If not, why else suggest it ?
You are very confused



That was sarcasm to illustrate your bail & most on mentality.
More confusion from you.
I told you - it would prevent the rise of a tyrant like Trump and the political inertia created when you get a lame duck president like Obama was in his 2nd term
It's also the preferred style of government of almost every Western democracy in the world, whereas the US presidential style is is used by tin-pot totalitarian presidents in third world countries



So you're back to saying the style of government is a reason to move in your opinion ?

If not, why else suggest it ?
You are very confused



That was sarcasm to illustrate your bail & most on mentality.
More confusion from you.
No, you are saying that you want to change our government to something you "think" is better. Obviously, you have never lived in England. I have.
Trump was no tyrant, but Ol'Joe is playing wannabe tyrant, just like Barry did. OBTW. We ELECTED them, all.
 
No, you are saying that you want to change our government to something you "think" is better.

I do and I know it's better
The evidence shows it's better
It's not even open to doubt that a parliamentary style of government is better than a presidential style
There is no way you can claim that a presidential stye of government is better - in a true democracy that is

Obviously, you have never lived in England. I have.

Why obviously ?

Trump was no tyrant, but Ol'Joe is playing wannabe tyrant, just like Barry did. OBTW. We ELECTED them, all.

Yes he was/is - he just didn't get an opportunity to exercise his tyranny
(namely that the US military wouldn't support a military coup in January this year, and don't say Trump wasn't advised to call one - because he was)

Please explain how Joe Biden is playing "wannabe tyrant".
 
I do and I know it's better
The evidence shows it's better
It's not even open to doubt that a parliamentary style of government is better than a presidential style
There is no way you can claim that a presidential stye of government is better - in a true democracy that is



Why obviously ?



Yes he was/is - he just didn't get an opportunity to exercise his tyranny
(namely that the US military wouldn't support a military coup in January this year, and don't say Trump wasn't advised to call one - because he was)

Please explain how Joe Biden is playing "wannabe tyrant".
Sorry, buddy, you aren't worth the effort to unscrew you.
 
Reading comprehension was just confirmed to be to be your terminal malady...

"Terminal" ?
It's hard to take seriously, someone with so little understanding of the meaning of words.


Never-the-less, like Sonny Liston, failing to answer the bell for the 7th round, in his first fight with Cassius Clay, your surrender is abject
You have failed to "answer the bell", you lose by default.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out Mr Liston.
 
"Terminal" ?
It's hard to take seriously, someone with so little understanding of the meaning of words.


Never-the-less, like Sonny Liston, failing to answer the bell for the 7th round, in his first fight with Cassius Clay, your surrender is abject
You have failed to "answer the bell", you lose by default.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out Mr Liston.
Just because I explain it to you doesn't mean I have to understand it for you.
 
The 17th Amendment fixed a definite constitutional flaw in American democracy, you might want politicians, unaccountable to the people, I don't.
Nope.

Enabled the "leaders" to eliminate states rights as Madison pointed out.

17th_amendment_1.jpg
Words proven true. Freedom means the people in each state can make whatever laws they want, and like minded citizens can gravitate to states desirable to them. Not so much anymore. All power has been usurped by the Central planners. (Mission Accomplished 17th Amendment)

So first step to tyranny, they had to cut the states out of the loop. (M.A. 17th Am.)

So how are senators "accountable" to the people? All they do is wait 6 years after screwing the country over then promise a bunch of retards "free everything" and U peeple fall for it every time. This was the main argument against "Democracy" by the founders. Proven true thru-out history.

A bit of research here. What was the national debt in 1913? What was it after Barry got thru putting all your future earnings (whenever U get old enuff to start working that is) in the governments pockets? You people already slaves and cant even figure it out..... (M.A. 17th amendment)

"Wud" or "Cud" .....ever heard of texting? Libs always try to make yourselves seem smart with idiotic quips. We prefer facts. Got any? Anything "good" that has come from the Senate sence 1913?

USSR "one man one vote". All counted at the central command under the dictators watchful eye. Same thing we will see here once they get rid of the Electoral College.

Where exactly is the word "interpret" in the constitution?

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. – Thomas Jefferson

"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." -Jefferson

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." -- Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution), let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Jefferson



Again, can you name a single gov. power that still falls under the 10th amendment? (M.A. 17th)
"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." - Jefferson

*He (and his collegues) gave ample warning about what your ignorance WUD (and is) doing to a once prosperous and peaceful republic.
 
Back
Top Bottom