- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Democracy is an important part of our country though. Would you rather we return to the tyrannical monarchy of Britain? The people must have a voice in order to keep the government from oppressing them. You say that the majority is violating the rights of the minority, but if we are worried about the violation of rights, shouldn't we be worried about the rights to property that are being violated in the majority? Most of these people can't afford to pay these debts because the national government didn't pay them for their service in the war. Why should we give more power to a national government that has let the people fall into debt?
While this would be great in theory, even your own side has agreed that factions will act in their own interests. If the minority faction control the government, they can use the N and P clause to push their agenda under the guise that it's "for the betterment of everyone" when it is really only for the betterment of themselves and their associates.
Taking the power away from the majority doesn't get rid of factions. It just shifts the power to the minority. Now that the majority doesn't have power, the elite minority (who are the ones being put into the Senate) are getting their way and taking advantage of the majority. Now the minority is protected by the government and can exploit the debtors to gain more wealth.
Standing armies are too great a threat to the freedom of the people. Militias are clearly a far better option for national defense. Standing armies give the central government too much control over the obedience of citizens. When the government puts a law into place, they will use the standing army to enforce that law and punish offenders. Brutus I stated that, “where a standing army is at hand to punish offenders, every man is actuated by the latter principle, and therefore, when the magistrate calls, will obey…” Another problem with standing armies is that they are trained to obey orders no matter what. If a Delaware native is told to fire upon a group of New Yorkers, he would comply without hesitation, but if he were told to fire upon his friends and family, he would put up resistance. The later situation is found in militias. The soldiers in a militia are fellow citizens, so they wouldn’t kill their friends and family just because the government tells them to.
The supremacy clause is a threat to the power of state legislatures. The fact that federal law overrides state law makes state legislatures seem powerless. The author of Brutus I had similar thoughts. “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 I). In the case of Shays and his group of rebels, they followed exactly what was said in the Declaration. They felt that their rights to property were violated, so they fought back. If the federal government would have passed legislature to grant the banks power to take that land AND had a standing army to enforce those laws, the states would have been powerless to fight back, and the federal government would kill anyone who tried to stand up for their rights.
The necessary and proper clause at the end of Article 1, Section 8 gives the central government too much power. As stated in Brutus I, "The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation. It is as much one complete government as that of New-York or Massachusetts, has as absolute and perfect powers to make and execute all laws, to appoint officers, institute courts, declare offences, and annex penalties..." The clause is too vague, and it opens up the opportunity for the central government to shut out the state governments. If the state governments are shut out, what place will the people have in our government? What if the central government passed legislation that rendered state legislature useless under the claim that it was necessary for the betterment of the country?
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!