The federal government of the United States of America should be abolished.

The structure that the Founders created was built with the very recent memory of the American War for Independence. They wrote the Constitution just a few years after a war against an exploitative monarchy (of course also after the failed Articles of Confederation, factoring in solutions to problems that not only existed in European monarchies but also this first Government), so they created a Government around the knowledge that politicians or other people in power will try to expand that power. The fact that they factored in political greed into the federal Government explains why our Government is a very well-designed attempt at the balance of power. Of course the Government now is not the same as the one they created -- and they actually knew that it would need to change, so they created a process for amending it: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution," of course, with the necessary balance of power in place to amend it. Simply because the society was different -- different in what it accepted, different in how it acted -- does not mean they were parochial in their ideals; in fact, New England was already moving towards abolition around this time. To argue that a three-branched structure does not work simply because the changing of an era is what is truly ludicrous. Human greed will continue until the end of time; the Founders knew this and solved this, arguably through political ingenuity, through the three-branched balance of power. This is why the Constitution, or the ideas of our Constitution, has been so influencial in global politics. My opponent argues that our system is "too far gone to restore what can be, and to change what realistically cannot be, and so it would be better for us to finally put to rest this system altogether and begin anew. " This is false. Anything that has been expanded outside the Constitution can be shrunk in the same way if we elect the correct people. The Confederacy my opponent is advocating has already been tried in the Articles of Confederation, and it worked horribly. Although I too agree that the federal Government has expanded outside Constitutional boundaries, there is a need for a central, federal Government to exercise some power, though obviously most would rest in the states. As has been shown by two to three hundred years of history, the states do not agree on everything, and will not continue to do so. We would effectively lose our title of "United" without a body to unite us under. I also do not hold that the Constitution is infallible or divine. I do, however, see its advantages as well as its disadvantages, and the advantages heavily outweigh the disadvantages (which can be seen in our relatively prosperous history), partly because the Founders knew that politicians are inherently greedy and power hungry. As a side note, the legend that German nearly became the official language of America is false, as there was no such bill. The 'separation between church and state' was effectively followed in the First Amendment which states that Congress shall not establish an official religion or prohibit its exercise. Your view of the world, my friend, is quite easy to imagine. Having several states composed under the unision of religion or politics or whatever is almost set up for failure. While a diverse nation nearly forces people to accept each other, having separate Jewish and Muslim nations attempt to cooperate under a 'United Nations'-type body is apt for immediate collapse. What happens to 'National Socialists' who are also 'Catholics', or 'anarchists' who are also 'pagans'? This categorization without consistency simply will not work, and it doesn't take much to see why. I await your response, and good luck!