CreateDebate


Debate Info

24
18
Federalist position Anti-federalist position
Debate Score:42
Arguments:41
Total Votes:45
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Federalist position (21)
 
 Anti-federalist position (17)

Debate Creator

Thames(106) pic



Should the Constitution be ratified (first 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: 24
VS.

Anti-federalist position

Side Score: 18
1 point

The Articles of Confederation allowed for the government systems allowed too much power to reside in the hands of the people. Majority factions could take power and pass legislation that benefited their interest and ruined the minority factions. In other cases, the minority factions would take power and rule over the minority like a dictator. The fix to this astounding problem in the early States was to divide the power equally among the factions. The creditors would hold power and the debtors. More specifically the House of Representatives would be elected by the people while the Senate would be appointed by the states until the 17th Amendment in 1913. The 17th Amendment allowed for the people to democratically elect senators and is often argued as giving too much power to the majority and removing power from the minority. Another example of this is the Electoral College that is used to elect the President of the United States of America. The Electoral College is a group of elites delegated by each state to vote for one of the two presidential candidates. While the majority of American citizens vote for a presidential candidate, the Electoral College, in the end, decides the president. Overall, the Federalist had to find a balance between giving the majority too much democracy and taking away too much of their democracy.

Federalist 10: "To secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed." (303).

Side: Federalist position
Tuff__Demon(7) Clarified
1 point

The Articles of Confederation formed a state republic system which most power was in the legislative branch of each state. This system allowed majority factions, farmers and debtors, to gain political power and with this power they could pass laws to rid them of their debt. For instance, farmers who owed money to the minority factions, creditors and rich statesmen, could pass laws to pay debt in various ways instead of paying up front. The new government system the Federalist created would rid this problem with divided branches and various ways to gain a seat. The Legislative Branch would be divided into two chambers, one representing the people and one representing the elites. The upper chamber, Senate, would be elites appointed by each state while the lower chamber, House of Representatives, would be democratically elected to represent the majorities directly.

Article 1, Section 1 "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a...a Senate and House of Representatives."

Article 1, Section 2 "The House of Representatives shall be composed...requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

Side: Federalist position
1 point

In my most humble opinion, It is abhorrent how little taxing power the central government has. How can we as a nation be expected to compete with a dynamic and changing world if we can't even collect funds? Those opposed may say something along the lines of any federal tax being unjust or liberty demeaning. I would say on the other hand, that the tax is liberty protecting, for it is used to fund the common defense of the people from those who would wish to take those freedoms away.

Side: Federalist position
Pesto_Knight(5) Clarified
1 point

An example of this would be during the revolution, For every dollar of money needed for the Continental army, The states only gave 37 cents. This continued into the Articles government. A federal government that is underpaid and a the whim of the states.l

Side: Federalist position
ArrogantAmb(5) Disputed
1 point

Taxing power is the very reason we broke from Great Britain and you suggest we replace it with an exact replica in our Confederation? Our current taxing system won us a war against the largest military force in the world. How can ultimate power rest in the hands of the people when the very people are being suppressed by debt and taxes. As Brutus puts in "Without money they cannot be supported and they[the states] will dwindle away, and as before observed, their powers absorbed in that of the general government. "(P.310) These new tax powers of the central government will bankrupt the states and leave no room for support nor opposition to an unjust government.

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

Do you have any proof that a federal tax would "Bankrupt the states" as you said? I would imagine that taxes would stay rather low due to the fact that representatives from the states would be the group that determines the allocation of said tax money. Also your claim that our current tax system won us a war is fictitious, More like we won the war in spite of our current tax system. When General Washington asked for funds to buy food and weapons for the citizen soldiers, the states only gave 37% of what was asked.

Side: Federalist position
WackoKnight(6) Disputed
1 point

You Would say, oh yes i feel very reassured. You say that it wont be liberty demeaning but instead liberty protecting, but how can you possibly guarantee what your fellow and future representation and legislatures will choose to do, they will use this power to abuse the majority and assume even more power, and it will be in their power to do so because we told them it was. The articles keeps said powers away from the government and where it belongs, it just needs to be better regulated.

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

The Federalists saw the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution as unnecessary. The Federalists believed that our Constitution was a fine and proper addition to the Declaration of Independence and a Bill of Rights was pointless as the Constitution was simply, just that, enough. This was the common Federalist mindset.

Side: Federalist position
Thames(106) Disputed
1 point

The Constitution was an addition to what, now? "a very similar mindset in regards to matters like this" What matters, exactly?

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

The Constitution doesn't state anything of individual rights. If the Constitution is to be ratified the Bill of Rights should stand to account for the rights of the people, without it the central government would have too much power and we would be at risk of having our rights oppressed. This new centralized government is too similar of the government that we fought so hardly to remove ourselves from, we must protect our personal liberties.

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

The Constitution is in no way linked to the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is, at its core, a limitation of citizens rights for a consolidation of government to potentially bluster the nation. In this frame, the very citizens that are being censored absolutely need protection or a buffer against a more powerful government. The Bill of Rights enumerates very specific terms in order for the "necessary and proper" clauses of government to be unable to trample the basis of human rights. Without the inclusion of a Bill of Rights this Constitution looks and reads more like monarchy than it already is.

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

Could you provide proof of any monarchy that is structured like the government outlined in the constitution? From what history I have seen, I doubt any previous government has had the elaborate system of checks and balances that is bestowed upon us. It is rather hard for one party or faction to use government force to oppress another faction if they are never able to control the entire government.

Side: Federalist position
Tuff__Demon(7) Disputed
1 point

The basic human rights would be reserved in the structure of the government setup by the Constitution. Federalist believed that listing out the rights would limit them. This very philosophy is why the Constitution goes into so much detail when describing the powers of the federal government so that if they do something out of line the people can call them out on it. Another fact remains, that the list of their powers limited the government but also allowed for any rights not listed are specifically to be granted to the people and state government. Out of 11,000 amendments proposed only 17 have been added since 130 years ago showing that it is near impossible to add new rights to the Constitution.

Side: Federalist position
WackoKnight(6) Disputed
1 point

But how can a constitutional document be considered a fine addition to the declaration of independence when it is a philosophical document itself. If anything a bill of rights WOULD be a fine addition. Yes if far too much power ever fell into government hands it would mean very little, but isn't that supposed to be what your perfect new system fixes if it does what you claim. There needs to be a system in place to ensure that the rights listed would be taken seriously and be the guidelines for future constitutional and morally just topics based on the listed, it would act as a guideline explicitly stating what powers and rights are guaranteed to the states and people, as compared to the government so there will never be future confusion, debate, or manipulation of them unless necessary to make changes or additions.

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

The necessary and proper clause also known as the elastic clause allows the our government to act fast. The Congress shall have 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 Officer thereof. National Government issues that are would benefit our government doesn't need to go through our government process in order to get passed of its necessary and proper it should be passed right away. If it is constitutional the Government should have the right to immediately take action.

Side: Federalist position
Thames(106) Disputed
1 point

You are confusing the clause with the branch and the office within it that can act quickly, especially militarily.

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

And what of the vast majority of time that our nation is at peace? A dictator or faction strong arms the majority into subservience because it is "Necessary and Proper" to the safety of the country? Moreover, even in the case of needed immediate action cannot we trust in our own people? If England or Spain invaded tomorrow, I am sure our delegates would unanimously agree on swift action. This vague stating of powers can only lead to disaster, or worse, monarchy. As Brutus puts it "... the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their control over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty."

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

That wasn't very reassuring, "if it is constitutional", but who decides what is and isn't morally just and constitutional, what if they choose to use it to pass laws that take away our liberty's, what if they feel that is necessary and proper. These powers need to be enumerated and then decided if they are too much, that is far too much ill explicitly stated power.

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

In the Articles of Confederation, a unitary system of government consisting of a single house legislature which represented each state equal was the only federal decision making branch. The Constitution sought to divide the powers among several branches who could check each other if one was to over step their boundaries.

Side: Federalist position
Thames(106) Disputed
1 point

In the Articles of Confederation, a unitary system of government consisting of a single house legislature which represented each

THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE ARTS OF CONF WERE. CORRECT THIS!

Side: Anti-federalist position
Tuff__Demon(7) Clarified
1 point

The government set up by the Articles relied to heavily on a democratically elected state legislature. People could become democratically elected and pass certain legislature to benefit factions, special interest groups. There were no other branches to check how much the power legislature branch held. The Federalist plan was to setup 3 branches that could check the powers of each branch. The main one the Anti-Feds were fearful of was the Executive Branch which would consist of a President and cabinet members. The President was the Commander in Chief which gave them the power to control all branches of the military. The new government needed a branch who could act quick and not rely on the slow moving legislature to pass bills. The Articles relied to heavily on a legislative branch who acted to slowly to get anything done.

Side: Federalist position
1 point

The supremacy clause does not give the government overbearing power over the states but just enough to keep them in their place. It was created to keep the States from abusing the power the the Constitution gave the and kept them from being overpowered . The federal government is just exercising their enumerated powers which prevails over any state exercising their powers. The federal government gets their power from the structure of the government which come from constitution. The Constitution is set up to keep our government from having to much power.

Side: Federalist position
1 point

The addition of the new executive branch into our government would be a necessary evil in order to temper the major issues of republics; The inability to respond quickly during times of crisis and the tyranny of the majority. For example, The government based off the articles of confederation only had a legislature and was unable to respond to Shay's rebellion, A uprising over taxation within Massachusetts. If we had a strong executive branch, we could have sent in federal troops into the area to help restore order more quickly. The executive branch would also work a counter to the majority controlled legislature. The executive could overturn actions done by the legislature if need be.

Side: Federalist position
0 points

The Federalists stated that federal courts were necessary as a mediator on state issues and so forth. Centralization was required for a good, well-functioning government.

Side: Federalist position
Thames(106) Disputed
1 point

States are not responsible for passing federal laws. By their definition, federal laws are passed by the federal, that is national, legislature which is now in Washington D.C.

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

(Necessary and Proper Clause)

An enormous oversight of the Constitution is the vague and malicious Section 8th, Article 1st, Clause 19. Where in the Constitution advocates anything done by the government as long as it is "Necessary and Proper". The Federalists continually defend the Constitution with claims of Enumerated powers and thus the limitation of power, but this very clause goes against this and advocates a loophole in government checks and balances. Moreover, this is completely snuffs the sovereignty of the States and censors their influence, Brutus I explains this by saying "... 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...". Brutus's claim runs deep as the Constitution continually censors and softens the States for complete tyranny.

Side: Anti-federalist position
Thames(106) Disputed
1 point

s Section 8th, Article 1st.--THE WHOLE THING?

Where in the declaration allow THE DECLARATION?!

Side: Federalist position
1 point

(New Military Power)

A standing military is a ridiculous demand and a clear power grab. The Constitution advocates for a standing army even at times of peace. Their attempt at consolidation of new found power is doubly dangerous with their standing army. As Brutus detailed "the new over-powerful central government would use a standing army to crush local militias."(P.255) The Federalists are creating a government that is impossible to be loyal to while also being impossible to resist, we have a name for this, tyranny.

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

Would the defense of Liberty be considered Tyranny? We almost lost our war in defense of our ideas due to a lack of resources from the states. How can they be trusted to defend our new union from those who would wish to subjugate us? A new federal army wouldn't inhibit liberty, for the funding given to them would be assigned by Representatives of the people. According to the Federalist papers written by Alexander Hamilton "A two-year funding limit ensured that if the federal standing army became oppressive, voters could reject the offending incumbents in the next congressional election in favor of new legislator who would carry out the will of the people"

Side: Federalist position
Tuff__Demon(7) Disputed
1 point

A standing military power could not be used by the President as a tyrannical force because the only laws he can enforce are the constitutional ones passed by the government so he cannot enforce laws just because he is the Commander in Chief. Also this new military power would be professionally trained so the defense of our nation would be greater. In the Constitution, it states in Article II Section II, "The President shall be the Commanderin Chief of the army...except in the cases of Impeachment" (343). States do not lose their militias but the president can use them at anytime to defend the nation or enforce constitutional laws.

Side: Federalist position
Profound_Wiz(2) Disputed
1 point

if that's the case why and how did shays rebellion happen?? Because the Article of Confederation are inadequate and allowed for this.... if our central government wasn't so weak, we could have put down the rebellion. We need and army standing army to take care of situation like shays rebellion. How can we call ourselves a government if we can't protect our people and their rights.

Side: Federalist position
1 point

(Bill of Rights) "The rights of the people continued to be violated till the Steward family was banished in the year 1688. The people of England magnanimously defended their rights, banished the tyrant, and prescribed to William Prince of Orange, by the Bill of Rights, on what terms he should reign. And this Bill of Rights put an end to all construction and implication." -Patrick Henry Speech Virginia Convention. Listing out your rights is important, they are ground rules that are essential for freedom. The bill of rights secure the important rights to humanity.

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

What about rights not listed in your "Bill of Rights", those that may exist in the future. What you are suggesting sounds like limiting freedom of the future generations based on current situations. Also, I'm sure that bill of rights you mentioned sure helped the British protect their rights from a tyrant, totally not like we just fought a war to be free from their rule.

The structure of the new government we are trying to form would be much more effective at protecting liberty just by its nature. A man cannot be oppressed by a majority with government force if the majority doesn't have control of the government and vice versa.

Side: Federalist position
Tuff__Demon(7) Disputed
1 point

The Federalist believed the rights of the people would be secured in the foundation of the government not be listing basic rights out. To them listing equaled limiting and that is why they listed out the powers of the government so if they were to do something out of line, the people could call them out. Listing out the rights limited the addition of more rights. In the 130 years of our nation 11,000 amendments have been proposed but only 17 have been ratified.

Side: Federalist position
Yodabama(4) Disputed
1 point

The Constitution already does this, so is a Bill of Rights even necessary?

Side: Federalist position
1 point

supremacy clause

The 6th article states "that this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made, 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." This constitution states that there is no connection between the wishes of the people through state governments to the federal government, they(gov't) can go right through states to the people "to appoint officers, institute courts, declare offences, and annex penalties." Any law made by the national government after this requires that the courts in states will be bound to follow them even though it's within the states and not a national issue. The government doesn't just have control over national issues affecting the entire country when necessary but every day life in the states meaning that the government IS more powerful than the states in this new constitution after all. It's impossible to get power back after you give it up except through violence. The states will only have power as long as it goes with the wishes of the the federal government and doesn't go against what they want.

p. 346/310

Side: Anti-federalist position
Yodabama(4) Disputed
1 point

A central government is needed to regulate and control laws. The states alone shouldn't have the power to pass laws, but actual individuals were instead needed.

Side: Federalist position
WackoKnight(6) Disputed
1 point

what does that mean, actual individuals, state legislatures with delegates were individuals and local where they know what the people around them need

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

(new taxing power) 309-10

":The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises;- there is no limitation to this power,... the net produce shall be for the benefit of the United States. The only mean therefore left, for any state to support its government and discharge its debts, is by direct taxation; and the United States have also power to lay and collect taxes, in any way they please." The government's unlimited taxation power was to strong for the states to tax as well, it will be impossible to fairly raise money on the people to support the states and therefore the government. This also means they can control the funding for our militias and limit it to nothing, this is a violation of our natural right "and the destruction of liberty."

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

First off, all taxing power resides in the hands of the House of Representatives which is the chamber of the Legislature that is democratically elected by the people to represent the people. Taxing power unites the nation and allows for federal funded programs to occur like roads, post service, banks, courts, and etc. The previous government setup by the Articles gave all the taxing power to the states. The weak federal government could not fund an army, build infrastructure, and support programs.

Side: Federalist position