As long as Iran continues to export oil, there is going to be corruption within the regime-regulated bonyads. Since Iran does not export oil to the United States, reimposing sanctions on Iran will not limit the amount of corruption within the bonyad system. However, liberalization of their economy via liberalization will.

While backing out of the deal may weaken Iran's economic situation, it for one gives them reason to prepare against further US-Israel contemptuous behavior, but also gives them the ABILITY to. This is literally handing your enemy a weapon and then angering them. In addition, the concepts of economic prosperity and liberty do not coincide with imposing economic sanctions because you are scared of a country weaker than you.

From a world peace standpoint, pulling out of the JCPOA will only exacerbate fragile foreign relations between Iran, the US, and the other countries involved in the deal. Iran benefits from the Iran Nuke Deal. Thus, pulling out of the agreement means our pre-2015 sanctions will be reimposed, giving Iran’s economy a major blow. Therefore, even if pro-nuclear weapon Iranians are happy about the end of the JCPOA, there will be a large number of liberal Iranians (who may be existing supporters of the US) who will be angry that Iran is cut off from the world economy. Anti-American sentiment such as that of the attitudes expressed by the Iranian students who, angry at the fleeing of their Shah, took American Ambassadors hostage in 1979, is fuel for war. This started a major conflict, and nuclear weapons were not even involved. Imagine the anger Iranians will have towards America for once again crippling their economy in an age where nuclear warfare is dawning upon us. Not only this, leaving the JCPOA means they are able to enrich Uranium to dangerous levels once again. Leaving the JCPOA may backfire on the US.

Last but not least, Congress is more powerful than the President because of veto override power. Congress can override a veto that the president uses. After this, there is no way the president can stop the passage of a law. An example of veto override is the 9/11 Bill. in 2016, Congress passed the 9/11 Bill, which allowed families who had loved ones killed by the 9/11 terrorist attacks to sue the country, Saudi Arabia. However, President Obama vetoed this bill. But with their supermajority, Congress used a veto override. This is a direct example of Congress’s power over the presidency because, after this point president Obama had no control over the law being passed by Congress. In addition, SCOTUS can not determine that a veto power is unconstitutional because the existence of the law is already in place and a veto override is an enumerated power of congress. In conclusion, Veto Overriding gives Congress power over the Presidency

The legislative branch's power over the President is also extended with the power of Impeachment. Congress has the power to impeach a president with a supermajority. Impeachment serves as a way for congress to keep the president in check. Even if the president has a technical power over congress, he is somewhat restricted from using it to his advantage because of the risk of impeachment. Although a president has never been impeached, Richard Nixon came so close to impeachment that he resigned his position as President in 1974 after a scandal. This is evidence that Congress has power over the president. Congress can choose to have impeachment trials with a supermajority. Officials believe that Nixon would certainly have been impeached and removed from office. Thus, Impeachment is an important feature of Congress that puts itself above the president in terms of power.

One of the biggest ways that Congress is more powerful than the presidency is Power Of The Purse. First of all, Congress has the power to control how much money is given to different departments, which essentially gives them the power to control government operations. Money is power, so congress can essentially give certain departments much more power. Congress often cuts certain department’s funding to render that department powerless. In addition, they also give certain departments increased funding to give them more power. An example of this is the Department of Education, which often has its budget amended. In just last year, Congress passed the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141). This law gave the Department of Education increased funding. In addition, Congress can control taxes with revenue bills meaning it can quickly raise money in specific areas if needed. Revenue bills all originate in the House of Representatives in Congress. Power of the purse gives Congress a big leg up over the President.

Too little democracy - Our government has to have a limit to the amount of democracy granted to the people. When we were under the Articles of Confederation, there was too much democracy floating around the country, and this is what led to the disaster known as Shays Rebellion. This was a perfect storm, however, because it showed founding fathers that, with too much power, the majority can be tyrannical too. For example, the debtor faction were given too much power in their local state governments, and began to pass tyrannical laws that benefited themselves. Federalist 10 speaks of a “superior force of an interested and overbearing majority”. This majority (the debtors) cannot be granted so much democracy that they begin to make corrupted laws that only benefit their own faction.

First of all, the Federal Government NEEDS to have taxing power in order to create revenue for the country. This revenue can be used for a standing army as well as infrastructure of the country. Without this source of money, the government is weak. If the central government is weak, the country is weak. The Federal Government needs this power. In addition, allowing states to emit their own paper money is a terrible mistake. We found out under the Articles of Confederation that states having their own currencies is terrible for business and logistics. In addition, even if the states printed the same currency, it would be impossible to monitor the amount of money being printed if different states were in charge of the processes themselves.

The Necessary and Proper clause is a good way for Congress to make important decisions which may extend outside their enumerated powers. There are very important occasions in our history in which Congress has used this enumerated power to make a decision. In addition, this is NOT unlimited power. The structure of government as stated in the Constitution allows separation of power and checks and balances which makes using the Necessary and Proper Clause (Elastic Clause) for tyrannical motives impossible. If a faction were to try to use the elastic clause to support their own group, the other two branches of the federal government can deny this decision.

Without a standing army, how would we be able to go declare war or protect ourselves in an organized fashion? Simply put, minimally trained militias are not able to organize and defend the country against imposing threats. We need a strong central government with a strong, paid, standing army that can defend the states from harm. Simple militias are unorganized, and can embarrass the country in front of real military threats.

Bill of Rights-

A Bill of Rights being included in the Constitution is not wise in the interest of the common welfare. Why? Well, by listing the rights of the people in the Bill of Rights, you are essentially LIMITING our rights. When specific rights are listed in this bill, it could be interpreted that these are the only rights that citizens contain. Federalist 84 claims that, “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.” It is obvious that a Bill of Rights is a dangerous institution that could be used to manipulate the people, dwindling their power.

Supremacy Clause -

The Constitution MUST be accepted as the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supremacy Clause of The Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) states that the Constitution, “...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The supreme laws are restricted to the enumerated powers that our central government is responsible for using. These laws include coining money, declaring war, supporting armies, collecting tax, etc. These powers MUST be enumerated to the congress. Without the Supreme Law of the Land being created by a strong central government, the Federal Government cannot fulfill its responsibilities stated in the preamble: to make a more perfect union, etc.to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, etc.