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