CreateDebate


Debate Info

110
93
Federalist position Anti-federalist position
Debate Score:203
Arguments:83
Total Votes:225
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Federalist position (44)
 
 Anti-federalist position (38)

Debate Creator

Thames(106) pic



Should the Constitution be ratified (FIFTH block)

Confederation or Federation, that is the question.  Cover these topics in your debate and cite/quote Brutus 1 and Federalist 10: *Necessary and Proper Clause  *Supremacy Clause  *Bill of Rights  *Federal Standing Army  *New Executive and Judicial Branches

Federalist position

Side Score: 110
VS.

Anti-federalist position

Side Score: 93
5 points

The new federal government has the power to create any laws they consider to be “necessary and proper.” This is not to grant the federal government the power to take away States’ rights. The States have the 10th amendment, which dictates that the powers not explicitly given to the government in the enumerated powers are reserved to the States. These powers include taxing, borrowing money, regulating commerce, regulating currency, establishing post offices and roads, regulating copyrights and patents, creating courts, regulating maritime crimes, declaring war and establishing an army, and governing the District of Columbia. Any powers outside of these are reserved to the states, and the federal government cannot change that.

Side: Federalist position
FlaminPotato(6) Disputed
1 point

Thank you, you just proved that the 10th amendment, which is part of the Bill of rights, protects the state government and the people from what the federal government can do to them using the "necessary and proper clause". Before the Bill of rights, the federal government can use this clause to do something outside the powers that you listed as long as it is deemed " necessary and proper" but the vague nature of this clause means that there's a highly probable chance that they can deem just about anything to be "necessary and proper" which is why the anti-feds wanted the Bill of Rights to be passed to prevent this from happening.

Side: Anti-federalist position
4 points

Bill of Rights-

A Bill of Rights being included in the Constitution is not wise in the interest of the common welfare. Why? Well, by listing the rights of the people in the Bill of Rights, you are essentially LIMITING our rights. When specific rights are listed in this bill, it could be interpreted that these are the only rights that citizens contain. Federalist 84 claims that, “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.” It is obvious that a Bill of Rights is a dangerous institution that could be used to manipulate the people, dwindling their power.

Side: Federalist position
Jazzy_Banana(7) Disputed
1 point

This was an accidentttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

Side: Anti-federalist position
FlaminPotato(6) Disputed
1 point

The Bill of rights doesn’t limit the rights of the people, in fact it incidentally gives them rights to not be prosecuted for what the federal government deem as “treason or espionage” which is why they passed the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 to limit the powers of the first amendment. This Act may have been made primarily to protect US intel from the enemies during war but it has been misused by the federal government a couple of times before. Three examples that I found was the prosecution or the attempt of prosecution of John Kiriakou, Thomas Drake, and Edward Snowden, these men worked in the CIA or NSA and saw the dark side of the government. They were prosecuted for bringing light to the horrible and unconstitutional things that the government have been doing. This adds to my point that the Bill of rights is not unnecessary, I’ll even claim that it’s not enough to protect the people from what the federal government can do to us because even when we have the Bill of rights, the federal government will still have a way to do what they deem to be necessary as we can see from these whistleblowers.

Side: Anti-federalist position
4 points

The standing army is not in place to suppress and/or harm the States. As can be seen in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, states are still allowed to form and regulate their own militias, for their own, small scale protection. The standing army is to protect the country as a whole, not to go against itself.

Side: Federalist position
lit-flamingo(5) Disputed
2 points

Standing armies take away liberty from the people. If they are used for tyrannical reasons no one will be able to stop them from harming the States. A militia will be much more organized and under strict direction from the people. They cost a lot less than standing armies as well.

Side: Anti-federalist position
Jazzy_Banana(7) Disputed
1 point

If the standing army was not to go against itself, then why did the Civil War happen. The North and the South separated and fought each other with full-time, properly trained troops. The standing army is used to enforce laws and destroy rebellions. If the federal government decides to pass a law that suppresses the people, then the state governments and the people have no choice but to follow the laws. For example, in the Battle of Blair Mountain, the miners rebelled because of the inhuman conditions that they worked in. The Federal Government threatened to destroy the rebellion with the standing army;therefore, the rebellion was blown out of proportion and was disbanded. No law was passed helping the miners and the lives lost were lost in history. If standing armies were fully used to protect the country, then it would be ok, but because standing armies have other roles that harm the states, it should not be accepted.

Side: Anti-federalist position
4 points

Supremacy Clause -

The Supremacy Clause sets out at the beginning that the Constitution of the United States is the pre-eminent law of the land to which all states must conform. The Constitution of the United States states, “That this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, in the trees May, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution, or law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding” (Article VI, Clause 2). With the Supremacy Clause, central governments have more power to handle conflicts that state governments are not equipped to deal with. Without the Supremacy Clause, the federal government would not be able to utilize its constitutional powers in the overall national interest.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

A standing army is beneficial for the growth and protection of the United States of America . Without a standing army, the United States is wide open to invasion with no restraint. States still have militias! What we, the federalist, are adding is protection from outside powers. As stated in the constitutions, the militias are in power to “execute the Laws of the Union”; however, the militias are not in sole power of themselves. Instead, congress will provide organization, armory, and disciplinary actions to the militias. Both militias and a standing army will add layers of protection to the American population. One layer would be the standing army protecting people from foreign enemies. While the militia would help enforce the laws to help domestic issues, protecting us from ourselves.

Side: Federalist position
Hippy_Eagle(1) Disputed
4 points

Standing army can possibly protect the nation from outside powers, but so can state militias. During the Revolutionary War, state militias were used to fight against a major foreign power. Winning the war was a major accomplishment for the nation. The federalists only want a standing army to control how and what citizens do when protecting themselves. Also, the second amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms, which supports state militias better.

Side: Anti-federalist position
alienpengui(7) Disputed
2 points

Sure, an army can be used to defend against invaders. However, a standing army could also be used to attack and take away freedom from citizens. What is there to protect protesters from being wrongfully attacked by their own government if the government also has the power to unite and control the militias? Similar systems have been adopted elsewhere, such as china, and liberties have ended up being smothered under the authority of a central government that believes it knows whats best for its people.

Side: Anti-federalist position
silly_goose(3) Disputed
1 point

Yes, a standing army may be able to protect against outside invaders; however, they may harm us more than help us. With a standing army our independence is at risk. Brutus states that "standing armies are kept up to execute the commands of the prince of magistrate, and are employed for this purpose when occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty." Standing armies are to be kept where there is a king, where there is someone in charge. If we have a standing army, the people begin to lose freedom and the government would evolve into less and less of a democracy. Here in America, the people are in charge. The government relies on its support from the people. With this in mind, Militias are clearly the better option. Militias allow for the people to have an even closer knit relationship with the government than we already have, as well as protecting our rights and keeping the people safe.

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

Supremacy Clause -

The Constitution MUST be accepted as the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supremacy Clause of The Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) states that the Constitution, “...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The supreme laws are restricted to the enumerated powers that our central government is responsible for using. These laws include coining money, declaring war, supporting armies, collecting tax, etc. These powers MUST be enumerated to the congress. Without the Supreme Law of the Land being created by a strong central government, the Federal Government cannot fulfill its responsibilities stated in the preamble: to make a more perfect union, etc.to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, etc.

Side: Federalist position
Jazzy_Banana(7) Disputed
3 points

How is it “establishing justice” if the state governments have no power? The Supremacy Clause is an imminent threat to the power of state governments as for federal law overpowers state law, virtually making state legislatures powerless. “It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the Constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void” (Brutus 1). In Shay’s Rebellion, the farmers thought that their inalienable right of property was being violated so they rebelled because the Social Compact Theory in the Declaration of Independence allowed them to. If the federal government were to say that banks had the power to take land, because “Tribunals are inferior to the supreme Court” (Enumerated Powers), and were to make a standing army, because the federal government can “raise and support armies” (Enumerated Powers), then the states would be powerless and the farmers would be slaughtered.

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

The government that was instituted by the Articles of Confederation allowed the state governments to be too democratic. In a small republic, representatives are biased towards their own state’s interests creating a majority faction. Majority factions are united under a common interest and will go against the rights of other citizens to gain “something” for their own group of people. For example, farmers suggested that carrots could be a form of payment towards bankers. “...who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Federalists 10 pg. 1

Side: Federalist position
silly_goose(3) Disputed
4 points

The states wanted a strong democracy and to be able to have their needs heard, understood, and taken into consideration. This will form majority factions and they can be bad, but they are fully necessary because we have to have popular government in order for the people's will to be the basis of government (popular sovereignty). Majority factions are just groups saying they want what most people want.

Madison acknowledged the importance of popular sovereignty in Federalist 10 when he said, "...to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed." But then he turned around and violated the principle, thus going back to majority factions. He created a government that will result in the other evil he mentioned: minority faction rule.

Side: Anti-federalist position
Pious_Peonie(6) Disputed
2 points

The Anti-feds argued that with the new government, and the constitution being ratified, that we wouldn’t have nearly enough democracy, that we were giving the government too much power, and not enough to the people, well that's why we invented the checks and balances system, to divide the power, and prevent corruption, by spreading the power over as many people as possible, without going over the time, and allowing human errors and bias to cloud the judgment. "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Side: Federalist position
3 points

Bill of Rights

We, the Federalists, deem that the Bill of Rights is unnecessary because the people and the states keep any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists want a Bill of Rights to safeguard individual liberty. However as stated in Chapter 6, “Regular elections, three branches that check one another’s power, the preservation of local governments, trial by jury, and habeas corpus protect liberty more effectively than a limited list of rights” (pg. 69). It’s impossible for the federal government to endanger the freedoms of the press or religion because these powers are not enumerated.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

The Constitution is needed to centralize our new nation. It will provide better military support as seen in the enumerated powers (Article 1, Section 8), as opposed to the weak militias in the Articles. The National Government will regulate these militias, providing better supplies, training, and standards overall. Thus, we will have a strong standing army. It is a necessity for a “real” country, such as England, that could invade us, so we need to be prepared to defend our land.

Side: Federalist position
alienpengui(7) Disputed
2 points

Do we really need a standing army to defeat powerful nations? During the revolutionary war, we defeated England under the very same militia system you are seeking to change.

Side: Anti-federalist position
FedFam1788(5) Disputed
2 points

During the war, those militias were unified. We were lucky that we won. It would still be best if everyone had the same supplies and regulations, for a nation divided can not stand. Do not forget about the supply shortages our troops did face during the war. It was unorganized.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

Executive Branch -

Due to the weaknesses of the Confederation and state governments with their nearly powerless executives, it is clear that we, Federalists, need a separate President with executive powers to enforce federal laws and conduct foreign policy. The Constitution states, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments” (Article II, Section 2). This new executive branch would take checks on the legislative branch in order for the different government branches to have equal power. The President would be accountable to both the people and Congress. If he fails to satisfy the people, then he will not be reelected. If he commits crimes, he will be impeached by Congress.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

Our nation needs to have one central currency to allow our country to grow as a whole. Article 1, Section 8 states that “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.” State to state trade, and trade with other countries, will be more efficient and desirable if the system of currency is not changing every state. The amount one holds will be equal anywhere they stand within the United States. Economic growth will not be interfered with as Rhode Island believes. Each state will have the same ability to create economic growth as before the constitution, and get to keep what they already have in the form of a new currency.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

We need the government to tax its citizens. If we get taxed all of that money is going into protecting ourselves and funding for things to make our country better such as schools, roads, communications, etc.. The anti-feds want to cut our taxes so people end up making more money but we can’t think about ourselves, if we get taxed we are also helping our country as a whole. Another very important reason to tax is that we are in debt, a big debt, and we need the money coming in so we can get out of this hole that we dug ourselves into.

Side: Federalist position
Jazzy_Banana(7) Disputed
2 points

The federal government does not give states the money to build schools. The money gained from the taxation of the states is very little and makes it hard for the states to supply the people with necessary wants such as education. The anti-federalists do not want to cut the taxes so people get more money, the anti-federalists want taxation to happen in the states so each state can be funded. The premise of a republic and a democracy is to provide to the people's needs to a limit. If the people did not think for themselves, then the government will take over and the people would be subjects like in Britain prior to the Revolution. If the people thought that insanely high taxes was only helping, then the people would not have rebelled. You talk about national debt, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that modern U.S., under the Constitution, is tremendously in debt.

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

The Anti-feds fear a standing army, they’re afraid it will give us too much power, and that we will abuse it. I would, however, like to point out that, with standing armies, we are better prepared to withstand attack, or initiate it, if need be. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That is a quote straight from the second amendment on the second amendment, providing assurances that a standing army is necessary for the safety of the people, and that this will not infringe on the peoples natural and given rights.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

We need a standing army because in time of war we will be automatically prepared. The anti feds wanted a militia, but this was proved to be ineffective. A militia would not give us enough time or resources to prepare for the war that would come.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

As a Federalist, my people and I came up with a list of Enumerated powers, to help show the anti-feds that we won’t corrupt the government with a large federal government. A strong national government would better protect the individual liberties of the people. By extending the reach of the government, individual and minority rights would be better protected from infringement by a majority.” Probably among the most talked about of the Enumerated powers, is the Necessary and proper clause, from Article 1 section 8. “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foreign Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” This being the most popular example of the Enumerated powers.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

We need a standing army so that we are always prepared for a war. If a war does happen then our standing army will already be trained and prepared to defend our country. Many strong countries such as Russia and China have standing In Brutus 1 anti feds don't like the idea of a standing army, they want state militias but those prove to be ineffective, as in if a nation declares war on us we cannot build up our army quickly, it will take time and plus they will not be near as trained as a standing army. Though the federalists did listen to the anti federalists and added to The Constitution that states can have state militias but we keep the standing army as well.

Side: Federalist position
alienpengui(7) Disputed
2 points

How is a militia system ineffective if we were able to beat the greatest power in the world, Great Britain, under it? Why should the power of the people be placed in the hands of elites when we have already proven our own system to be effective? Especially when those very same elites are far removed from the collective interests and true needs of the people they are protecting.

Side: Anti-federalist position
Hippy_Eagle(1) Disputed
1 point

State militias are as equally prepared for war as standing armies. During the Revolutionary War, state militias were used to win the battle against Great Britain-a major standing power. Standing armies take away citizens' power to protect themselves, by using standing armies to enforce structure that could be created by a state militia.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

We, the federalists, want a big democracy. We believe that the uneducated majority can’t decide what to do in complex matters because they simply don’t have the ability to. The well-educated elites should have the responsibility of that job.

Side: Federalist position
alienpengui(7) Disputed
2 points

Is federalism truly democracy? Placing power in the hands of far removed elites becomes impossible rather quickly. As a population grows, representatives will have to appeal to and represent ever growing constituent bodies. In a short matter of time, the same elites that are presented as a way to properly make decisions would turn into an impossible notion as one man can not possibly understand the intricate needs of a populace so different and vast than themselves.

Side: Anti-federalist position
lit-flamingo(5) Disputed
2 points

The problem with a big democracy is that the elite’s will not be able to fully represent everyone. Elites do not appeal to the needs of everyone in the nation. As we grow more and more as a country in the future, it will be harder to equally represent everyone and know everyone that you are representing. Elites will become very detached from the needs of the different and large amount of people being represented.

Side: Anti-federalist position
FlaminPotato(6) Clarified
1 point

I think you meant that ya'll federalists want a republic type of government because you want to have few people who are educated to decide what to do in complex matters.

Side: Federalist position
Thames(106) Disputed
0 points

REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY! The founders were unanimous in their hatred of democracies!

Side: Anti-federalist position
JamesDD(102) Disputed
2 points

REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY!

They aren't mutually exclusive you moron. When you eventually learn to use a map look up the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

As a Federalist, a Bill of Rights seems unnecessary because the Bill of Rights would just be a “parchment barrier”. Besides, the Constitution provided a system of checks and balances that would protect the People’s liberty more effectively than a list that can be easily thrown away. “The protection of these faculties, is the first object of government.” Federalist 10 pg. 2

Side: Federalist position
lit-flamingo(5) Disputed
2 points

The Bill of Rights would not only protect our individual rights but would also limit the amount of power the government would possess. It would guarantee that the peoples rights are safe and will not be infringed at all, no matter what. The system of checks and balances does not completely guarantee the possibility of one branch of government being more powerful than the other.

Side: Anti-federalist position
FlaminPotato(6) Disputed
1 point

You say that the Bill of rights is just a list that can be easily thrown away even though the federalist listed the things that they can do in the constitution then again ya'll can do stuff that aren't listed in there using the the necessary and proper clause.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

BILL OF RIGHTS-The Anti-feds were worried that without a bill of rights, the government wouldn’t be able to properly protect the rights of the people, that the government would be too far removed to help or care. Which we understand, however rest assured that we will do our best to help protect our people. One of the most popular Bill of rights is the section of “All Men are created equal “The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.”

Side: Federalist position
2 points

Too little democracy - Our government has to have a limit to the amount of democracy granted to the people. When we were under the Articles of Confederation, there was too much democracy floating around the country, and this is what led to the disaster known as Shays Rebellion. This was a perfect storm, however, because it showed founding fathers that, with too much power, the majority can be tyrannical too. For example, the debtor faction were given too much power in their local state governments, and began to pass tyrannical laws that benefited themselves. Federalist 10 speaks of a “superior force of an interested and overbearing majority”. This majority (the debtors) cannot be granted so much democracy that they begin to make corrupted laws that only benefit their own faction.

Side: Federalist position
0 points

don't responddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

Side: Federalist position
4 points

Standing Army

A standing army in the United States would take away from the people’s power and stray away from what a republic should be. Most rebellions are deescalated by the standing army and rarely is there a federal law passed. Look back at Shay’s Rebellion and how 125 wealthy Bostonians hired over 3000 troops to put down the 1500 farmer-vets. Now imagine if there was already a completely trained and armed standing army funded by the taxes of every elite and civilian in America. The 1500 farmer rebels would not stand a chance and would immediately be disbanded. Would the Constitutional Convention still have happened, likely, but one thing is for sure, it would not have been because of Shay’s Rebellion. In 1920, the Battle of Blair Mountain was between ill-treated miners and coal companies being backed up by the standing army. Tensions escalated and U.S. President, Warren G. Harding, threatened to send troops and bombers to tackle the marching, protesting, un-armed miners. No law was passed protecting the miners after the incident. The standing army is not protecting the people, but instead it is forcing the people to live with their inalienable rights being taken.

Side: Anti-federalist position
lilsaint(5) Disputed
2 points

The standing army is protecting the people and they are not taking our inalienable rights away. They are protecting everything we work and live for. Would you still stand by a militia and elect an officer and leave our country unguarded while we are under attack from another nation or would you side with the standing army and let them do what they are trained and prepared to do and go directly into action.

Side: Federalist position
FedFam1788(5) Disputed
2 points

Inalienable rights would NOT be taken with a standing army. IF, for whatever reason, the army were tyrannical, the citizens would be able to elect a new representative in Congress (Article 1, Federalist 8). This representative would be able to use the Power of Purse to defund it. The people would still have control.

Side: Federalist position
Flamacue(2) Disputed
1 point

Without a standing army, how would we be able to go declare war or protect ourselves in an organized fashion? Simply put, minimally trained militias are not able to organize and defend the country against imposing threats. We need a strong central government with a strong, paid, standing army that can defend the states from harm. Simple militias are unorganized, and can embarrass the country in front of real military threats.

Side: Federalist position
4 points

The Congress has the power to make laws that are necessary and proper. This vague clause used by a large republic will lead to elite rule. In a large republic it is not possible for everyone to be equally represented because one elite can not accurately represent the ideals of the majority. Elites can make laws by saying it is for the “common defense” or the “general welfare” because it is in the Constitution. The Congress would have the power to repeal any state laws because the congress would go beyond its enumerated boundaries by bending the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

Side: Anti-federalist position
unidolphin02(5) Disputed
2 points

While it seems that you are worried about a tyrannical aristocracy, a tyranny of the majority is an equal probability for a small republic. Due to a small republic being too democratic, it can be easily taken advantage of by the majority interest group, a group of people with equal interest that try to gain advantages to improve their interest group. For example, when debtors were in the state legislature they suggested to pass a law that allowed a farmer to pay a banker in carrots. "...rights of the minority party...by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority...by a common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community" (Federalists 10 pg. 1). Also, elites would not be able to take control of the government due to the system of checks and balances that were set up by the U.S Constitution. The checks and balance system allows each branch of government; judicial, executive, and legislative; to have a limited amount a power so no one branch can take complete control over the government.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

Necessary and Proper clause

The Necessary and Proper Clause grants the Federal government too much power and can be abused as for any law can be passed with the justification that it is “Necessary and Proper.” The Clause is so broad and powerful that state governments could be completely destroyed if the Federal government sought the need to. After the ratification of the Clause, the federalist improperly used the clause to justify the power to charter an unnecessary national bank. The anti-federalists replied saying, “The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient’ for effecting the enumerated powers.” An example of a proper use of the Necessary and Proper clause is the Louisiana Purchase. There is no specific enumerated power giving Jefferson the right to purchase such a piece of land that would triple the size of the country, but waiting for an amendment to pass could cause the deal to slip so Jefferson purchased the land thinking of the people’s best interest.

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

Constitutioncourts “jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes...and it extends to all causes in law and equity arising under the constitution” (Brutus 4). Under the Constitution, we the states have the right to have at least one court in each state. Today we have over 90 local and state courts across the United States. In these local courts, our needs are able to be met and it gives us fair trials. If we had not had this the results of Shays Rebellion would be dramatically different. In Shays Rebellion, the state court was able to give a fair trial rather than having a farmer hung for defending his natural and inalienable rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence. As Anti-Federalists we believe these rights must be protected and the federal courts do not support this belief.

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

The necessary and Proper Clause is an unfair way of passing laws in the country and gives Congress too much power. We believe that laws should not be simply passed because they are “necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers” (Brutus 2). Laws should be passed by the people, for the people, to further benefit the people, not because a law is “necessary.” According to Brutus, with this clause the powers given by the Constitution are too general and would result in absurd rulings from legislature, such as a state not being able to change their individual income in order to help pay off state debt because they may “prevent the collection of a tax which they may think proper and necessary.” The passing of this clause gives Congress too much power, thus taking away from the people and the states.

Side: Anti-federalist position
foureels(6) Disputed
3 points

The federal government does not wish to impede on states” rights with the power granted to them in the necessary and proper clause. This clause is in place to allow the federal government to pass laws that the country needs as a whole, not just whatever Congress wants. The system of checks and balances will make sure that this power is not abused.

Side: Federalist position
Flamacue(2) Disputed
2 points

The Necessary and Proper clause is a good way for Congress to make important decisions which may extend outside their enumerated powers. There are very important occasions in our history in which Congress has used this enumerated power to make a decision. In addition, this is NOT unlimited power. The structure of government as stated in the Constitution allows separation of power and checks and balances which makes using the Necessary and Proper Clause (Elastic Clause) for tyrannical motives impossible. If a faction were to try to use the elastic clause to support their own group, the other two branches of the federal government can deny this decision.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

The federal courts “jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes...and it extends to all causes in law and equity arising under the constitution” (Brutus 4). Under the Constitution, we the states have the right to have at least one court in each state. Today we have over 90 local and state courts across the United States. In these local courts, our needs are able to be met and it gives us fair trials. If we had not had this the results of Shays Rebellion would be dramatically different. In Shays Rebellion, the state court was able to give a fair trial rather than having a farmer hung for defending his natural and inalienable rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence. As Anti-Federalists we believe these rights must be protected and the federal courts do not support this belief.

Side: Anti-federalist position
foureels(6) Disputed
1 point

However much we admire brave Daniel Shays, people have to pay their taxes. And let's not forget, HE WAS REBELLING AGAINST STATE TAXES. The new central government will not be able to impose direct taxes, as stated in the enumerated powers, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Side: Federalist position
silly_goose(3) Disputed
1 point

Daniel Shays was NOT rebelling against state taxes as a whole, he was rebelling against an absurd amount of taxes and the way they were being enforced. In this time, the repayment of credit or loans was to be paid back in hard currency, which was in a shortage at the time and most people did not have. Shays was on the side of the people that were poor and depressed and had no money. The absurd taxes would lead to loss of their farms or even imprisonment, leading to more debt and more taxes and more criminal activity, thus leading to more trials and more debt, which a state court would better be able to defend than a federal court because they have a better understanding of the situation.

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

Federal Taxing

The Federal Government being able to tax the people perpetually puts state governments in no-man's land. State governments power to tax has decreased tremendously making it very difficult for the State to properly fund its militia. Along with this, state governments are also not allowed to “emit paper money--lay any duties, or imposts, on imports, or exports…”(Brutus 1). State governments have to rely on direct taxation which generates very little money. “Without money they cannot be supported, and they must dwindle away, and, as before observed, their powers absorbed in that of a general government”(Brutus 1).

Side: Anti-federalist position
Poptart_Cat(4) Disputed
2 points

Under the Articles of Confederation, state governments already didn't have the power to tax people. Because of this, states were not able to fund a proper military. We, Federalists, want a government powerful enough to create its own money and regulate the commerce of all of the states. The Constitution states, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States" (Art. 1, Section VIII). By enforcing federal taxing, we can finance essential national projects like constructing roads and canals. Federal taxing will benefit the national interest which will lead to us becoming a world power.

Side: Federalist position
Pious_Peonie(6) Disputed
2 points

We as a group are also attempting to tax more, which scares the anti-feds, as they feel that they’re already poor lives will become even worse, however, more/stronger taxing powers are essential to start this nation and keep it off the ground. Taxing is how the government will get money to spend on fixing things like roads and bridges.

Side: Anti-federalist position
Flamacue(2) Disputed
2 points

First of all, the Federal Government NEEDS to have taxing power in order to create revenue for the country. This revenue can be used for a standing army as well as infrastructure of the country. Without this source of money, the government is weak. If the central government is weak, the country is weak. The Federal Government needs this power. In addition, allowing states to emit their own paper money is a terrible mistake. We found out under the Articles of Confederation that states having their own currencies is terrible for business and logistics. In addition, even if the states printed the same currency, it would be impossible to monitor the amount of money being printed if different states were in charge of the processes themselves.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

Clauses such as the supremacy clause place overriding power on courts that are far away and detached from the intricacies of individual state’s livelihoods, and give them the power to effectively negate state courts, rendering them obsolete. In the case of the constitution, ratification could spell a future in which federal courts precede state courts in all matters that they wish, and could potentially “swallow up” all state court power. (Brutus)

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

Across history, federal standing armies have not only been utilized in the war times, but also in peace times to quell uprisings and take liberty as needed to maintain order. How may a constitution that derives its principles from a document that promises natural rights support a government that has the power to use an army and gather up militias to suppress the free will of the people? (Brutus)

Side: Anti-federalist position
chubaccaluvs(4) Disputed
2 points

The constitution states that we still have state militias. We wouldn't use a standing army to stop rebellions towards the government.

Side: Federalist position
alienpengui(7) Disputed
3 points

Just because state militias still exist doesn't mean they are not subject to the proposed central government. The central government could still potentially justify an attack on its own people if they believe that the incident is jeopardizing the safety of the country as a whole. In those instances, it is a concern that the government would jump to stealing away liberty instead of using a more nuanced approach.

Side: Anti-federalist position
lilsaint(5) Disputed
1 point

The Constitution clearly states that states can have their own militias. Meaning the federal government can not control the state militias, the actual states do and they get to elect their own officers. Another is with the standing army, they are not there to take our natural rights away, their main purpose of the standing army is to protect our country as a whole, not too turn on our own citizens.

Side: Federalist position
JamesDD(102) Disputed
2 points

their main purpose of the standing army is to protect our country as a whole

Utterly false codswallop. If the "main purpose of the standing army is to protect our country" then would you care to explain why it IS NEVER WITHIN OUR OWN BORDERS?? The US army spends all its time in foreign countries, interfering in other people's business.

You people are just so brainwashed it's depressing. You're idiots. Plain and simple.

Side: Anti-federalist position
unidolphin02(5) Disputed
1 point

While that might have been true in Great Britain's government, the American government has a system of checks and balances that limits the government from using the "necessary and proper" clause against the people's natural rights. Also, the militias that you mentioned do in fact have an aspect that proves that the people have control over the militias. "...reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" (Enumerated Powers 2). The states have the power to elect the officers of the militias and they get to train their men under certain restrictions.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

Necessary and Proper Clause

We Anti-Federalists think the idea of the Necessary and Proper Clause is ludicrous. This is just a way for the government to unfairly pass laws without the people’s say. It makes Congress the “supreme law of the land” and gives them “power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any department or office thereof.” (Brutus 2) This clause is very vague and this allows them room to pass any laws they deem necessary.

Side: Anti-federalist position
Pious_Peonie(6) Disputed
2 points

We Federalist state that the necessary and proper clause will not be abused, we will vote as a government, as an equal representation, what is, and what is not, necessary and proper. “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

Side: Federalist position
chubaccaluvs(4) Disputed
2 points

The necessary and Proper clause has ever been used harm anyone or anything. It was used to justify the the regulation of production and consumption, it was also used to justify federal criminal laws.

Side: Federalist position
lilsaint(5) Disputed
2 points

The Constitution did add the Necessary and Proper clause but to keep our government turning into a tyranny we have checks and balances to keep our government from becoming too powerful. The people won't and can't be hurt from the Necessary and proper clause.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

Standing Army

A standing army would take power away from the people and destroy their liberties. In militias, people had power to fight only when necessary. In a large republic, one law will please some while others are left unhappy. Those people will support a standing army based solely on the fear of getting killed.Even though the Const. Keeps militias around, it creates a standing army. State militias helped win the fight during the Revolutionary War. State militias allow for less chaos and more unity. Citizens are able to enforce power among themselves without being forced to fight under a standing army.

Side: Anti-federalist position
FedFam1788(5) Disputed
2 points

People would still have their inalienable rights. If at any point things were seen as unjust, the Power of The Purse could be used to stop funding. And, overall, a standing army would be better funded as seen in Article 1, Section 8. Better training would be provided, and there would be more regulation. If anything, it is safer for those in the army.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

Federal Courts

Us Anti-federalists believe that the state courts will be nothing but "a clog upon the wheels in the government of the United States." The federal courts will work "to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority". When state courts are diminished, so is the ability of regular people to serve on juries and be tried by their peers. For example, Britain's government did not give fairly try people in court. People in America would be taken all the way back to Britain and would be shown no mercy in court. The federal government would also be too far away to understand the needs of the states. Therefore, they would not be able to make fair rulings in court like state courts would.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

The Bill of Rights was necessary to secure the rights of the people by limiting the power of the federal government over them. An abusable power in the constitution is the necessary and proper clause, the federal government can deem anything to be “necessary and proper” and get away with it. Another part of this clause that makes it abusable is that it doesn’t have to be written in the constitution for them to get what they want. One positive example of this is when the federal government was able to charter a national bank during the McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) case despite the constitution not mentioning any national bank. This was a beneficial way of using the necessary and proper clause but the fact that the federal government was able to do something outside their proposed jurisdiction means that they can also use this clause for tyrannical reasons and the constitution will not be able to limit that power.

Side: Anti-federalist position
foureels(6) Disputed
2 points

Yes, the federal government did use the necessary and proper clause to make a law outside of what is allowed in the enumerated powers. However, they did this in a very positive way. For example, with creating national bank, Congress allowed for the fair distribution of credit, security of deposits, price stability, mobilization of resources, and banking facilities for impoverished areas. Congress used the necessary and proper clause to benefit the United States, and this what they intend to continue doing. The system of checks and balances will ensure that this clause is not abused.

Side: Federalist position
unidolphin02(5) Disputed
2 points

The government is set up in a systems of checks and balances to keep an act of "tyranny" from one of the branches from not happening. Another thing, the government is set up in a way to protect such natural rights/power of the people. "The protection of these faculties, is the first object of government" (Federalists 10 pg. 2). The "necessary and proper" clause is not meant to hurt the People or the government would not have set up a system of checks and balances to keep a suppression of the people's natural rights from happening.

Side: Federalist position
Poptart_Cat(4) Disputed
2 points

The Bill of Rights is unnecessary because the people and the states keep any powers not given to the federal government. You want a bill to secure the rights of the people; however, as stated in Chapter 6, "Regular elections, three branches that check one another's power, the preservation of local governments, trial by jury, and habeas corpus protect liberty more effectively than a limited list of rights" (pg. 69). All of these aspects already safeguard individual's liberty. The only thing that this ineffective "parchment barrier" does is limits rights.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

Testing testing testing tesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggg... (you can add points if ya want 0w<)

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

A single person in congress represents thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people, this person can’t possibly know all the people he or she represents and the issues they deal with. It is stated in Brutus 1 that, “In a free republic, although all laws are derived from the consent of the people, yet the people do not declare their consent by themselves in person, but by representatives, chosen by them, who are supposed to know the minds of their constituents, and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind”. This is a big problem especially to minority groups whos’ voices might not even reach the ones who are representing them.

Side: Anti-federalist position