CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Unidolphin02

Reward Points:5
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
86%
Arguments:5
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
5 most recent arguments.
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.

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.

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.

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

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

Unidolphin02 has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here