Taking bets! Feds vs States

[Goobieman]

I wouldn't know.

It's never happened.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...ng-bets-feds-vs-states-12.html#post1058097092

 

[Joe Steel]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...ng-bets-feds-vs-states-12.html#post1058097092

What's your point?

Honestly.

Are you going to push this? If so, explain to me exactly what you mean by "pass(ing) an amendment that nullifies the Constitution."

 

[Goobieman]

What's your point?

That your description of my post as 'ridiculous' is unsupportable.
If you disagree -- address the post.

The states CAN pass an amendment that nullifies the Constitution.
The Federal Government CANNOT legally stop them from doing so.
Show how I am wrong.
Then show how the federal government can legally eliminate the states, with the states having no power to stop it.

Are you going to push this?

Are you going to run away?

If so, explain to me exactly what you mean by "pass(ing) an amendment that nullifies the Constitution."

The statement is in English, and so, it should be self-explanatory.

 

[phattonez]

Goobieman, I hate to raise issue since I agree with you, but the burden of proof is on you.

For instance, I can claim that there is an invisible rocket in the sky. I can't tell someone else to disprove it; I have to prove it is there before the other person has to argue.

 

[wbreese91]

What's your point?

Honestly.

Are you going to push this? If so, explain to me exactly what you mean by "pass(ing) an amendment that nullifies the Constitution."

If you had ever read the Constitution, you would know. States can ammend the Constitution by a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of the states. Once there 3/4 of the states can agree to an amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Joe Steel]

If you had ever read the Constitution, you would know. States can ammend the Constitution by a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of the states. Once there 3/4 of the states can agree to an amendment to the Constitution.

I thought you'd try this.

As usual, you've got it wrong.

Article V

The Congress...on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...

The States can't call the convention. Congress has to call the convention.

Now, I realize Article V uses the imperative "shall." Usually that's construed as an order. However, I can't imagine Congress calling a convention if they know the purpose is to abrogate the Constitution . More than likely, a movement to abrogate the Constitution would completely ignore Congress and call a new constitutional convention. It would be 1786 all over again.

 

[phattonez]

Now, I realize Article V uses the imperative "shall." Usually that's construed as an order. However, I can't imagine Congress calling a convention if they know the purpose is to abrogate the Constitution . More than likely, a movement to abrogate the Constitution would completely ignore Congress and call a new constitutional convention. It would be 1786 all over again.

Now you're saying that the Constitution is worthless because it won't be enforced. Be consistent with your arguments!

 

[Goobieman]

Goobieman, I hate to raise issue since I agree with you, but the burden of proof is on you.

There's really nothing to prove here.

-The states can amend the Constitution. Common knowledge.
-Depending on how they do it, there's nothing the Fed Gvmt can legally do to stop them. Again, common knowledge.
-Nothing in the Constitution allows the Fed gvmnt to eliminate the states w/o the states being able to stop them. More common knoweldge.

I can certainly cite the Constitution for the first and second claim - but do I really need to?

 

[Goobieman]

The States can't call the convention. Congress has to call the convention.
Now, I realize Article V uses the imperative "shall." Usually that's construed as an order. However, I can't imagine Congress calling a convention if they know the purpose is to abrogate the Constitution .

You -obviously- aren't interested in an honest debate.

My claim was the states are able to amend the Constitution with the Fed Gvmnt having no LEGAL way to stop them.

For Congress to NOT call the convention violates the Constitution, making this method of stopping the states ILLEGAL because of the constitutional imperative to do so.

And so, you've done nothing to counter my claims or show how they are "ridiculous".

Not that I am surprised or anything.

 

[Joe Steel]

You -obviously- aren't interested in an honest debate.

Sure I am. It's just very difficult around here. The regulars aren't honest debaters. Most are slippery spinners.

My claim was the states are able to amend the Constitution with the Fed Gvmnt having no LEGAL way to stop them.

For Congress to NOT call the convention violates the Constitution, making this method of stopping the states ILLEGAL because of the constitutional imperative to do so.

And so, you've done nothing to counter my claims or show how they are "ridiculous".

Not that I am surprised or anything.

Frankly, I'm not convinced this bizarre idea of yours really is possible. It seems to be consistent with the text but it's still ridiculous.

A government designed to be responsive to the People would never be dissolved by 50 governments prone to manipulation by special interests. I doubt the special interests who run State governments ever could coordinate their efforts sufficiently well to implement the scheme.

 

[phattonez]

It seems to be consistent with the text but it's still ridiculous.

His idea agrees with the text, yours does not. Are we done now?

 

[Goobieman]

Sure I am. It's just very difficult around here. The regulars aren't honest debaters. Most are slippery spinners.

As the desert said to the grain of sand.

Frankly, I'm not convinced this bizarre idea of yours really is possible. It seems to be consistent with the text but it's still ridiculous.

Explain, exactly, how the states cannot amend the Constitution to eliminate the Federal government in a manner that cannot be legally stopped by said Federal government.
If you cannot, then your characterization has no rational basis.

A government designed to be responsive to the People would never be dissolved by 50 governments prone to manipulation by special interests.

You're arguing that it will/wont happen.
The issue is if it CAN happen, in that the legal mechanisims are in place.
As such, your argument here is irrelevant to the issue.

 

[wbreese91]

Sure I am. It's just very difficult around here. The regulars aren't honest debaters. Most are slippery spinners.

Well if you didn't constantly justify yourself by saying everyone who disagrees with you is a slippery spinner, you might have an honest debate.

Frankly, I'm not convinced this bizarre idea of yours really is possible. It seems to be consistent with the text but it's still ridiculous.

That is what most foreign powers though of our Constitution. They were wrong, so are you. This is basically how our Constitution was written in the first place.

A government designed to be responsive to the People would never be dissolved by 50 governments prone to manipulation by special interests. I doubt the special interests who run State governments ever could coordinate their efforts sufficiently well to implement the scheme.

Yes it would. The founders wanted to make sure the states wouldn't be trapped beneath the government if it became corrupt like the colonies were trapped under England. Oh yeah, special interests only have a huge say in state politics.:doh Captal Hill isn't overflowing with lobbyists or anything.

 

[Joe Steel]

Explain, exactly, how the states cannot amend the Constitution to eliminate the Federal government in a manner that cannot be legally stopped by said Federal government.

If you cannot, then your characterization has no rational basis.

You're arguing that it will/wont happen.

The issue is if it CAN happen, in that the legal mechanisims are in place.
As such, your argument here is irrelevant to the issue.

Nonsense.

Theoretically, all 300 million Americans could flip a coin at the same instant to get 300 million "heads."

It's posssible but it's still ridiculous.

 

[Goobieman]

It's posssible but it's still ridiculous.

And thus: You argree that, ultimately, the states are sovereign.

 

[Joe Steel]

And thus: You argree that, ultimately, the states are sovereign.

Of course not.

The States are creatures of the People. If your bizarre idea ever were to be implemented it would be implemented because the sovereign People wanted their creatures, the State governments, to do it.

 

[Goobieman]

Of course not.

Thatd odd...
You said that it was possible for the states to dissolve the federal government without the federal governemnt having any legal way to stop it.
How is that NOT agreeing withmy argument that, between the two, the states are sovereign?

 

[wbreese91]

Thatd odd...
You said that it was possible for the states to dissolve the federal government without the federal governemnt having any legal way to stop it.
How is that NOT agreeing withmy argument that, between the two, the states are sovereign?

Because that would entail him admiting he was wrong....and we all know the likelyhood of that happening.

 

[Joe Steel]

Thatd odd...

You said that it was possible for the states to dissolve the federal government without the federal governemnt having any legal way to stop it.

How is that NOT agreeing with my argument that, between the two, the states are sovereign?

Ultimately, only the People are sovereign.

 

[phattonez]

^^And the people authorized the constitution.

 

[Goobieman]

Ultimately, only the People are sovereign.

These issue here is state v federal sovereignty (see: thread title)
And thus, yoiu agree with me, that the states are sovereign.

 

[wbreese91]

Ultimately, only the People are sovereign.

*Sigh* and who make up the states? which make up the nation?

 

[Plaw]

If anyone follows the Glenn Beck program and recent news...

Several states are inacting legislation which says that in their state that the federal government cannot regulate firearms that are made in their state and remain in their state. I believe this is a precursor for things to come, but back on topic.

On todays show they had a 10th amendment expert on the show and he stated that he believed the federal court will squash these states rights by expanding the right of federal regulation into "anything that may interfere with interstate trade". So the federal government may say that guns can be considered a tool to commit a crime that interferes with interstate trade.

I feel he may be right. I do not see the federal government relinquishing any of the power it has taken. I think the federal government will once again overstep their power in its quest to gain more power.

What do you think? And will states continue to try and take back their rightful powers?

The Congress will regulate gun sales under the powers granted to them under the "commerce clause" in Article 1, sec. 8 of the constitution. Basically, the courts have held consistently that congress can regulate anything that substantially impacts interstate commerce.

This has been interpreted to include more than the sale of finished goods or services. For example, even if the guns are manufactured and sold within one state, it's highly likely that the raw materials used in the manufacturing process were imported, thus impacting interstate commerce. It is also higly likely that the company making the guns has a bank account, uses a computer, uses the phones, etc... all of which also impact interstate commerce. As you can see, by this interpretation it's very difficult to argue that any business is an intrastate concern.

The "commerce clause" has been interpreted by the courts to give congress pretty broad powers. I doubt that will change anytime soon. :thumbs:

 

[Joe Steel]

^^And the people authorized the constitution.

Exactly.

The People, not the States, ratified the Constitution.

 

[Joe Steel]

These issue here is state v federal sovereignty (see: thread title)
And thus, yoiu agree with me, that the states are sovereign.

No.

The People are sovereign.

Being sovereign means you don't have to take orders from anyone.

The United States and the States take orders from the People.

Therefore, the United States and the States are not sovereign.