The United State's government is no longer representative of the American people.

Clarifiying resolution accepted. 1. a) Con concedes that the Iraq War was "technically" unconstitutional. Since there is no other parameter to reasonably decide whether a legal document (the Constitution) has been adhered to or not than by "technicality," Con thereby admits that the Constitution was, in fact, violated. Since the Constitution was violated, Pro argues that this violation sets or strengthens a precedent of the government, especially the President in this case, increasing its/his own power at the expense of the rights of the American people. Especially their right to be represented. Congress is Constitutionally required to declare war because they are ostensibly representative of the people, and if this requirement is not met, then the result is what can only be reasonably described as an Executive, and illegal, decision to go to war by the President exclusively. Congress held no vote and, therefore, the people were not represented in any way. b) The fact that polls around the time showed a trend towards support for the war is in no way evidence that the American people made the decision to go to war (assuming that these polls were representative of the American populace at large in the first place), and Pro argues that this is a case of a questionable cause fallacy where to believe that the American President made the decision to wage war based on public opinion is Cum hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning which leads to the false conclusion that public opinion caused the war, when in fact the invasion was caused by executive decision alone, which in turn influenced public opinion. In reality, the President made his intentions, and his inflexibility regarding their realization, well known in advance to the public and thus public opinion, as represented by political polls, conformed to his apparent decision because of a patriotic bandwagon effect as the apparently inevitable invasion neared. A trend which, it is to be noted, eventually reversed as it became apparent that the evidence against Iraq was essentially nonexistent [1]. It is also to be noted that this reversal in public opinion had no measurable effect on the timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, as the majority began regarding it as a mistake around the turn of '06-'07 [1], but the war continued until December 15, 2011. That is roughly a four year delay. While Pro recognizes the need for a reasonable amount of time to exit a war-zone, Pro argues that this instance was a dubious use of the military's time that was directly opposed to public opinion, and therefore it is further evidence that the American population is not fairly represented by the American government. c) Con asks a loaded rhetorical question that implies one incorrect, and one unfalsifiable, assumption(s). The incorrect assumption was that the argument was whether the American people cared whether they were represented or not, when that is in fact irrelevant, as the original argument was only that they are not fairly represented, and not whether they cared or not. The other assumption is that Con knows the state of the American people's concerns, worries, and desires, which he has no rational basis to assert, and which is unfalsifiable based on the subjective, unmeasurable, nature of the emotional state of "caring." 2) Pro would like to clarify here. Pro's argument that the Supreme Court decision is evidence for an unrepresentative government was one of cause, not effect. Therefore the popularity of the Supreme Court decision is irrelevant, as pro is aware of the Constitutional nature of the Supreme Court as a self-directed branch of government. However, the Supreme Court ruling establishes a precedent where political pandering, lobbying, and bribery are no longer just grudgingly-accepted pitfalls or barely-tolerated background flaws of the political system, but now are expected, dominant, and legal aspects of the resulting system. This creates an environment where the wealthy corporations and individuals, along with the politicians themselves, are at an even greater advantage in creating self-interested policy with minimal or no input from the American populace. Pro is aware that "can does not imply will" but argues that the government had previously achieved autonomy from the American people through other means (such as the precedent Bush established through an unconstitutional war.) This decision was merely the removal of one of the final legal "roadblocks" in the way of federal-corporate partnership and autonomy, whether it was intended that way and whether it was popular are both irrelevant issues. 3) Pro concedes Con's point that the fact that it was not a good deal is irrelevant, but argues that the people "supported the bill at the time" was not the case [2][3]. Con is referring to three polls as evidence, out of which the only one showing a majority of support for the bill is the one dated Sept. 19-22, which shows a 57% majority for the bill. However, the next poll (Sept. 27-29) shows a majority of only 45%, which is not in fact a majority and demonstrates a trend in the public toward disapproval of the bill as it approached its vote, and this is further evidenced by the even lower percentage in the Oct. 3-5 poll of 42% approval. October 3 was the date that the House of Representatives signed the bill into law, so claiming that the public supported the bill "at the time" is factually incorrect [2][3]. Allowing for some delay in transfer between what the public wanted and what the Congress decided, and for the sake of argument, Pro will argue that if we assume that the 57% majority held until, and through, the Congressional vote, then the population at large was still not represented, or at least misrepresented, by the government. Pro argues this because the vote was decided by a margin of 263-171[3], which is a 65% majority, as opposed to what was, at most, a 57% majority in the public at large. 4. a) The people cannot vote for "views," only the candidates that may represent them. However, Pro maintains his argument that most elections, and especially Presidential elections, are presented through economic means as false dilemmas. The public does not vote for Republican or Democratic views because they are their exact (or even close) opinions, but because in the apparent absence of more agreeable options (which do in fact exist), their views tend to correspond somewhat more to one party or the other. However, if the other political parties and candidates were more salient in the mind of the public--if they were even options--which Pro argues is a trend that is vigorously resisted by the present establishment, then the public would be able to vote for candidates whose views were more representative of their actual opinions. This, however, does not in fact happen. Therefore, on balance, the pool of nominees, candidates, and elected politicians, is not representative of the opinion or views of the American people in general. b) Here Con makes another over-specific claim to the opinions and feelings of an entire nation. Pro argues that, again, Con has no rational basis to assert knowledge of what the populace "thinks." c) Pro fails to see the relevance of the opinions of the American public regarding spending cuts to the dilemma of political representation. Pro asks if Con could clarify here. d) Con asserts that a) The American people "control everything" and that b) Both the American people and government are "evil." The use of the word "evil" is loaded language, and in no way did Pro imply that either were evil, or that either one "controlled everything." In fact, Con's assertion that the American people "control everything" is inconsistent with his proposal for a clarifying resolution, which Pro accepted. [1] http://pewresearch.org... [2] http://pewresearch.org... [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...