How would it look for America to be funding a place that not only regularly kills civilians who are just expressing their frustrations about the terrible things that are going down, but also a place that goes against every democratic process we stand for?

Not to mention how it will most likely be used to pay the basij and army, to make sure that they are treated well enough to turn on the public. We've seen it before and it will happen again. They only treat the military well to ensure that they will turn on the public. Otherwise they'd be treated just as bad as the civilians. Long story short, us providing money to them will be DIRECTLY putting the public in more harm because it would be our money that was just used to pay soldiers to mow down anybody who chooses to speak out about the injustices that are taking place.

Iran may give the illusion of freedom and democracy but they allow their theocratic ruler and their counsel rule every aspect of their constitution. Even the supposed "elections" are not safe. This is because the guardian counsel vets all of the candidates. And to be selected "fit" by the counsel, one must believe in Sharia law. Iran is fooling its own citizens into believing what they want to believe, so how can we possibly trust them with no sanctions and money provided by the US. They are not even honest with their populace, so we have no way of thinking that they would be honest with us.

This is also true. We do not have to look any farther than the Iranian Hostage Crisis Situation of 1980. Where they stormed an AMERICAN facility and took hostage American citizens.

If we fear that they may retaliate, they are probably not people that we should do business with and send money to and allow them to start making more money. We should not have to worry about our "ally" attacking us if we do not relieve sanctions that were placed because they were building nuclear weapons. As stated, they are just too untrustworthy.

This is very true. Especially since they have a history of doing this exact thing. They funded and supported terrorist organizations.

We should not make a deal with these people! Look at their leader! Ahmajinedad is not a trustworthy enough leader to do business with. He has rigged elections, openly called for the genocide of the Israeli people, and many more heinous offences. But it is not just Ahmajinedad, President Rouhani stated that if we do not accept the conditions of the nuclear deal and chose to back out of the deal, he threatened that he would raise the price of oil. These are people who can not be trusted with money from Americans. We have no way of knowing how they would use the money due to the use of bonyads. Especially since they have a history of supporting Anti-American terrorist groups. Groups such as Hamas. They are a Anti-Israeli terrorist organization who is not only supported but also funded by Iran.

While congress can impeach a president, it is very rare and has only happened twice in the 44 presidents we have had (excluding our current president because he has no officially been impeached). To impeach a president it would require his or her own party to turn against them. (Call me out in the hall if you would like me to elaborate some more ;))

Pocket veto- An indirect veto that is issued by the president. There has been a total of 2,580 pocket vetoes that have taken place. There has only been 111 of them that have been overridden. It requires a ⅔ vote from both house and senate to overridden.

Executive Orders- Are like laws. But can bypass all the steps of becoming a law. They don't have to go through any other branch or party. And they can be undone by the next president.

National Emergencies- A national emergency allows the president to make laws without consulting anyone else. Which allows the president to act swiftly. And can only be undone

by a super majority from both house and senate. Has been declared 59 times.

You stated that state militias are too small to protect the United States, but we won the revolutionary war with state militias. Our militias held off the entire British army. So I see no reason as why we should trade our state militias for a standing army.

It would be impossible for large republics to elect representatives that know and can accurately express how the people feel. But in a smaller republic it would be easier for the representatives to express the feelings of the people due to there being a smaller amount of people for you to represent. And that is the point of a representative, correct? someone who will express how you feel. Brutus 1 states, "it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people".

as an anti-federalist, I feel as if the supremacy clause is too powerful. It grants the central government’s courts more power than state courts. It also allows congress to not only put courts in Washington, but also anywhere they deem “necessary and proper”. This would render the state courts useless. Brutus 1 states, “ these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts.”

as an anti-federalist, I feel as if the necessary and proper clause is way too powerful. It is vague and states, “a power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution, all powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the united states...entirely to abolish the state legislatures”.(Brutus 1) This shows how this clause could allow congress to do anything that they see fit even abolish state courts if they sought it necessary.

Anti-federalist feel as if a standing army is not needed nor do they have a place in our states. Because this standing army could be used to intimidate our independent states into something that we do not agree with. Brutus 1 states, “ standing armies are kept up to execute the commands of the prince or the magistrate, and are employed for this purpose when occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty”.