If we follow the Declaration of Independence, then it is past time to overthrow the U.S. government.

I find it shockingly ridiculous that FDA, EPA and other regulatory agencies created, authorized and sustained by elected representatives, are considered a tyranny by Pro over freedom. Freedom, perhaps, for zero-representative corporations to sell food watered down with cheap toxic fillers or drugs taht are unsafe, untested or ineffective, getting people to hang their health on the good word of agricultural or pharmaceutical CEOs? As it is, the underfunding of these agencies have resulted in screening gaps that have led to a number of deaths I could only chalk up to agricultural/pharmaceutical malpractice that has even been willful at times. Professionalism in these agencies requires making it a career instead of a 4- or 6-year job. Are police departments, fire departments and public hospitals equally as abusive to Pro because they are not elected bureaus either? Unfortunately, this is only a 2-round debate, so I will not get to read and respond to any remarks Pro has to say about it within the confines of the bonafide debate. I am most definitely baffled and curious as to whether (and if so, how) Pro differentiates local emergency services from federal bureaus. In terms of "bureaus are abusive," unless one is restricting to singular charges against specific bureaus for specific reasons, one cannot pick and choose "I like X bureau, but do not like Y." The constitution does not allow women to vote nor have equal rights. Unless an ERA amendment finally passes, should women being allowed to vote or any federal gender-equality legislations also be considered abusive? Also, didn't President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation violate the pro-slavery Constitution of the time? Lincoln must be one of the most abusive presidents of all time in your book for doing that. Bits and pieces ... The Constitution is not the law. The FDA, EPA and other federal bureaus act on behalf of elected representatives. Legislators, presidents and justices tend to be very smart people, but its impractical to consider them experts on anything, and a nation as large as the United States cannot rely on a president and vice president and a couple hundred Congresspersons to be able to effectively regulate federal minimum guidelines for things like the minimum wage, certification that a drug is safe and effective or environmental laws. States can and do override these minimum guidelines to establish higher ones ... several states (California, for example) have higher minimum wage standards. California also has tougher environmental protections, especially in terms of pollution from automobiles. Power is thus not taken away, merely federal minimum standards are applied. There's no Constitutional declaration of "Murder is a federal offense." Thus, federal prosecutions for murder are Constitutionally abusive just as much as federal bureaus carrying out their functions without having to make time for political campaigns every 4-6 years. Or do you think it right to pick and choose what is or is not abusive in your book? Things like FDA and EPA regulations and enforcement are an infringement on absolute freedom, but absolute freedom is not just. If you want to live in a world where one state can declare it is okay to poison kids with toxic chemicals if a CEO is making a buck off it, then go ahead, seek to dismantle the EPA. If you want to live in a world like China where bureaus for public benefit are a joke and products like baby milk formula can come to market even when watered down with cheap toxic fillers, then go ahead, seek to dismantle the FDA. It is simply unreasonable to leave it to the states to agree to common minimum standards when interests common between states should be handled by the federal government, with federal authority. == REBUTTAL ON "OVERBEARING TAXES" == The profiteering by domestic oil cartels is obscene. They choked out the rest of the country, including most businesses and individuals. A lot of businesses completely shut down, costing a lot of people their jobs because of their greed and obscene profits. The oil companies' "happiness" was due to capitalistic abuse that bled everyone else in the country dry, including the government with a majority of its population having a lot less money to pay in taxes. It was, in my book, a very reasonable measure to compensate for the obscene tax breaks given to the nation's wealthies (wherein a lot of record-profit oil companies paid taxes equivelant to the low single digits, far less proportionally than, say, a middle-class family who struggled with bills and a rapidly tripled-or-more energy bills). The runaway greed of the cartels (domestic oil companies as much as foreign, mind you!) endangered not only the independence of the American People and the viability of the American economy. Its the equivelant of a small group of people using every drop of water from the Mississippi, and yet Pro would cry foul if the government attempted to intervene as people had no water to drink, river transportation was left useless on a dry river bed and no fishing to be had either (or farming, or anything else dependent on the river). We find laws, on occasion, that are wrong and unjust and though a person might technically violate them, our system can contest the justness of questionable laws. By the same token, I consider it only fair that people who do things that, while not technically illegal, place a massive, tremendous strain and undue burden on the rest of the population, and I cannot think of a much worse example in recent history than the oil profiteers that decimated the remainder of the American economy. It was capitalistic abuse, and Congress was right to intervene to protect American businesses and families. I hope all my arguments and points are duly considered when you choose which side you feel has won this debate. Thank you to my opponent, and thank you audience for participating now by rating and voting both myself and my opponent. I look forward to future debates!