- 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.
What exactly will "limit" said jurisdiction? The government itself. The government could EASILY use that to its advantage. The central government keeping itself in check? That sounds like letting a five year old be home alone all day with no babysitter and expecting them to get onto themselves when they do something wrong.
If we centralize the government, it will not be as functional. It is better for the states to have more power because they have the people and the individual state’s interests in mind. With a smaller group of people to focus on, the state governments would be better fit to suffice the needs of their own people, whereas the government as a whole focuses on the population as a whole. This prevents problems in specific places from being brought to light.
Essentially, the Necessary and Proper Clause is too broad; it gives the federalists the ability to create just about any law at any time they see fit. This can easily create a corrupt government. If the government has all of the power, any law is fair game, which can become dangerous fast.
Our problem is not with one branch being too powerful, it is with the government as a whole becoming too powerful. What keeps the government as a whole in check? We elect people. However, our power ends there. We get no say in what actually happens, just who decides. Your last sentence is our problem with "your" government. Ours is not weak. Ours deals with problems specific to our region. Like you said, your new government is pretty powerful. We just hope it doesn't get too powerful.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!