• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

The minority majority

Harshaw said:
You don't seem to be able to contribute much of anything which rises above this.

For example, you have not even attempted to refute my argument.
Click to expand...
But I did. That it is way over your head or beyond your comprehension is not my fault. Educate yourself. Citing the text of the Constitution and then misrepresenting it is not an argument.
 
prometeus said:
Sovereign entities do not have limitations imposed on them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand that everything you bolded in red is a limitation on the FEDERAL government, not the states.

As such, as Tennyson said, by your argument, the federal government isn't sovereign.
 
Tennyson said:
Texas v White did not determine secession. That has already been addressed in another thread with no counter argument.
Click to expand...
You are still repeating the same moronic assertion, it only add to the count of stupid posts you make.
 
prometeus said:
But I did. That it is way over your head or beyond your comprehension is not my fault. Educate yourself. Citing the text of the Constitution and then misrepresenting it is not an argument.
Click to expand...

You did no such thing. You didn't even attempt to do any such thing, and you certainly didn't demonstrate that I "misrepresented" the text.

In fact, your own red bolding, as I mentioned, indicated that you didn't really understand what you were reading. You thought it was a limitation on the states. You may still.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm not sure you understand that everything you bolded in red is a limitation on the FEDERAL government, not the states.

As such, as Tennyson said, by your argument, the federal government isn't sovereign.
Click to expand...

For starters read the first ten amendments.
 
prometeus said:
Is that why it says no state, because it limits the fed? Learn to read.
Click to expand...

Is that why it says "Congress shall not...."?

You do know that the Constitution is a dual federalism document, or divided sovereignty, right?
 
HowardBThiname said:
The Electoral College is our saving grace and it prevents simple mob rule. We were never set up as a pure democracy, and thank gawd for that.
Click to expand...

Using a term like MOB RULE is abysmally ignorant of the actually meaning of the word MOB which is implicit with violence and lawlessness. It is disgusting that right winger wrongly use that pejorative in discussions like this and there is no excuse for an educated person to use it.

When I see it employed, it immediately disqualifies the user and brands them as either woefully uneducated about the meaning of the word or hopelessly partisan defending their advantage with claws of grim death.
 
prometeus said:
In that quotes section? I missed that part, can you point it out?

Divided sovereignty is not sovereignty.
Click to expand...

First Amendment.

Then you are stating that the US is not sovereign.
 
Tennyson said:
First Amendment.

Then you are stating that the US is not sovereign.
Click to expand...
Why do you find it necessary to lie or make up idiotic crap? It will not mast the stupidity of your posts nor the lack of educated content or your arguments.
 
HowardBThiname said:
The Electoral College is our saving grace and it prevents simple mob rule. We were never set up as a pure democracy, and thank gawd for that.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah.

I'd expect that sort of answer from a third-grader who'd never taken a course in Civics Instruction. But said instruction is in a truly bad way in the US. To wit (from here):
Civic knowledge and public engagement is at an all-time low. A 2016 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that only 26 percent of Americans can name all three branches of government, which was a significant decline from previous years.1 Not surprisingly, public trust in government is at only 18 percent and voter participation has reached its lowest point since 1996. Without an understanding of the structure of government; rights and responsibilities; and methods of public engagement, civic literacy and voter apathy will continue to plague American democracy. Educators and schools have a unique opportunity and responsibility to ensure that young people become engaged and knowledgeable citizens.

While the 2016 election brought a renewed interest in engagement among youth,4 only 23 percent of eighth-graders performed at or above the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) civics exam, and achievement levels have virtually stagnated since 1998.
Click to expand...

'Nuff said? Probably not ...
 
Harshaw said:
I do. But if you think it's "not relevant" to the question of sovereignty that the states can dissolve the federal government, but the federal government can't dissolve a state, then you do not.
Click to expand...

What wackiness!

The state cannot secede from the Union. Period - see here.

I thought the Civil War had responded to that question. Not for some dolts, evidently ...
 
prometeus said:
Why do you find it necessary to lie or make up idiotic crap? It will not mast the stupidity of your posts nor the lack of educated content or your arguments.
Click to expand...

Then you are stating that the US is not sovereign.
 
Lafayette said:
What wackiness!

The state cannot secede from the Union. Period - see here.

I thought the Civil War had responded to that question. Not for some dolts, evidently ...
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the Constitution, or its intent, that would prevent a state from seceding. The preamble also evidences this as well.
 
Lafayette said:
What wackiness!

The state cannot secede from the Union. Period - see here.

I thought the Civil War had responded to that question. Not for some dolts, evidently ...
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about a state seceding. "Wackiness," indeed.
 
prometeus said:
And where am I mentioning the US?
Why do you continue to lie and stupidly so too?
Click to expand...

Your statement that the US is not sovereign: "Divided sovereignty is not sovereignty."

So you are stating that the US is not sovereign.
 
Tennyson said:
Your statement that the US is not sovereign: "Divided sovereignty is not sovereignty."

So you are stating that the US is not sovereign.
Click to expand...
That is only your moronic lie. I made no statement about the US.
Go lie to somebody else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom