• 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!

Does Christopher Columbus deserve a holiday?

Does Christopher Columbus deserve a holiday?


  • Total voters
    49
lets not judge people by todays standards.
 
It was a sort of "what would you do if you were President, Congress, and the Court system all in one." question - which you more or less answered with the main body of your post.

Hmm. Oddly enough, I seems that I think of myself as a US citizen first and a Pennsylvania citizen second. I assume that is the reverse of what you would prefer.

I don't know the constitution well enough to determine if other issues would result from such a change, but the idea seems sound, I dislike the federal gov > state gov, being used so often on too many issues.
Hmm, again, my limited constitutional knowledge bites me in the ass... But I can't see much wrong with that, it seems to fit with one of my basic views, namely that, the Federal gov (and in most cases, the state govs) is too large and invasive.
The first part seems somewhat reasonable, but the second might be an issue, depending on other factors, can you imagine how many treason accusations would be flying around D. C., at least with the current political/social climate? I doubt anything would ever get done, wait, maybe this is a good idea after all. :mrgreen:
Seems good in theory, but I don't know enough to determine what other repercussions would result, if any.
I don't know if that would violate the 1st or not, didn't someone argue that political parties and all those others fall under it's free speech protections?
Hmm...

I don't entirely agree with your apparent underlying theme of, states need to be FAR more independent. I like the idea of most people thinking of themselves first as US citizens and second as *insert state here* citizens. I think that is a positive. I'm not sure you agree

Seems reasonable, given that I think you would have far fewer Fed workers in each state anyway. When in Rome...

I would prefer it to be state citizenship firth then US citizenship second.

I'm glad that you like my overall plan. :) As far as violating the First Amendment, it wouldn't since all of the entities I named are artificial persons under the law. Last time I checked artificial persons do not have free speech. Treason would be only invoked when it's easily proven like through a Congressional vote. The secession amendment is to clear up confusion regarding this point. The amendment would be clearly defined divorce law for the states to leave the union.
 
I would prefer it to be state citizenship firth then US citizenship second.

I'm glad that you like my overall plan. :) As far as violating the First Amendment, it wouldn't since all of the entities I named are artificial persons under the law. Last time I checked artificial persons do not have free speech. Treason would be only invoked when it's easily proven like through a Congressional vote. The secession amendment is to clear up confusion regarding this point. The amendment would be clearly defined divorce law for the states to leave the union.

But by banning political parties you would be trying to limit people from seeking out and speaking to each other about things they have in common. Remember, a party can be anywhere from 2 people on up.
 
But by banning political parties you would be trying to limit people from seeking out and speaking to each other about things they have in common. Remember, a party can be anywhere from 2 people on up.

It's no limitation on people seeking out and speaking to each other about politics. It just means that they cannot use a political party to exert influence as an artificial person.
 
It's no limitation on people seeking out and speaking to each other about politics. It just means that they cannot use a political party to exert influence as an artificial person.


George Washington, and others of the Founders, warned against what they called "faction" and we would call "political parties." Yet, the first two "parties", Federalist and Anti-Federalist, were taking form before the ink was dry on the Constitution.

If people are allowed to talk to each other about politics, you will have political parties: there will be private discussions and backroom deals and "we're going to vote together on things we think are important". In other words, if you ban political parties they will still exist... they'll just go underground or be called "voluntary associations" or some such thing.

One of the most fundamental of human instincts is tribalism: that is, banding together with other like-minded people as a force multiplier. We did it for hunting, agriculture, and war, and now we do it in politics. It is as inevitable as death and taxes, IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom