Foolsamurai's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Foolsamurai's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Although they might have proven to stand against major powers, they have also proved to be unreliable and disobeying. During Shays rebellion the militias were ordered to stop the rebellion but instead of going along with orders they decided to join the violet protesters in destroying government properties. What would happen if our militias decided to switch sides and go against us in a war. We would be doomed with no one to protect us. This is why we should also have a standing army to support.

Foolsamurai(8) Clarified
1 point

Militias would not completely go away, but a standing army would benefit the states by protecting against a large scale invasion. Militias could deal with domestic and smaller issues.

1 point

you take power away from all majorities and factions by creating a larger representation. the majorities may still have power on a smaller scale, but when put on a large, national, scale they will no longer be a majority and will no longer have power. The government is has checks and balances to make sure that no branch of government has more power than the other.

2 points

.the government had Power of the purse and they could not appropriate money to the funding of the army for more than 2 years. In the instance of the army becoming tyrannical, the people could elect new representatives to kill/defund the army.

2 points

Although there is a chance the army could be come tyrannical, in article 1 section 8 of the Constitution, it says, " To raise and support armies, but no Appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." Under the circumstance of the army becoming tyrannical, every 2 years the people of the states get to vote on new representatives. These new representatives could then defund the army using POP.

2 points

A standing army was very necessary at this time, with out a standing army there is no possible way the states would stand a chance against another major power like Britain. Standing armies are better trained and regulated. Although the farmers may have been ordinary citizens, they were destroying government properties and institutions and also using the power they gained from being the majority to their own benefit. They were hurting the economy by their debt forgiveness law. The militias should have tried to control the farmers, but instead, they deliberately disobeyed their orders and joined sides with the farmers. This is an example of how the militias were not well regulated because they could easily switch their sides in another situation.

3 points

Federalist wanted a standing army, Federalist wanted this because it would better help strengthen the power of the government and protect the people from foreign invasion from other big powers at the time like Britain. Standing armies are better trained and more thoroughly regulated because they are government institutions, militias are not very well regulated and ruled for example Chapter 23 says, “ The militias called on to put down Shays Rebellion instead joined the violent protesters.” The militias disobeyed their direct orders to stop the rebellion and instead joined the other side of farmers.

5 points

Federalist favor a big republic over small to avoid having majorities that would use power to their own benefit. Point to the states….

Solution: The larger the population and republic, the less people will agree unless the position is very broad. For example, a majority at this time was the debtors, or farmer, who were using the power they gained for their own benefit and using it against the minority, or the creditors, by not paying back the debts they owed by passing debt forgiveness laws.

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]