- 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
The legislature of the United States, particularly the house, is granted the power to set tax rates for the citizenry. According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the constitution,
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
Executive orders are also notoriously easy to overturn. Sure, they may carry the weight of law, but when the president's terms are up, they can be overturned just as quickly. Not to mention that they can be easily overturned by the supreme court if they are deemed unconstitutional.
The Legislature has the power to overturn said veto and get the bill into law without the presidents approval. According to Article one, section 7 of the United States Constitution.
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law."
Imagine that you are playing a game against a group of friends where the rules can be changed on the fly simply by a majority decision. If two thirds of the group agree, a rule can be added, an older rule modified, or an older rule is thrown out completely. Now imagine that you are the President of the United States, and you "Playing" against the Legislature that has the power to "Change the rules" as described above. This is almost exactly how the Constitutional amendment power works as described in Article five of the Constitution. The most the President could do to stop the amendment process is use the informal power of the "Bully Pulpit", and that's not even guaranteed to work.
The addition of the new executive branch into our government would be a necessary evil in order to temper the major issues of republics; The inability to respond quickly during times of crisis and the tyranny of the majority. For example, The government based off the articles of confederation only had a legislature and was unable to respond to Shay's rebellion, A uprising over taxation within Massachusetts. If we had a strong executive branch, we could have sent in federal troops into the area to help restore order more quickly. The executive branch would also work a counter to the majority controlled legislature. The executive could overturn actions done by the legislature if need be.
Do you have any proof that a federal tax would "Bankrupt the states" as you said? I would imagine that taxes would stay rather low due to the fact that representatives from the states would be the group that determines the allocation of said tax money. Also your claim that our current tax system won us a war is fictitious, More like we won the war in spite of our current tax system. When General Washington asked for funds to buy food and weapons for the citizen soldiers, the states only gave 37% of what was asked.
Could you provide proof of any monarchy that is structured like the government outlined in the constitution? From what history I have seen, I doubt any previous government has had the elaborate system of checks and balances that is bestowed upon us. It is rather hard for one party or faction to use government force to oppress another faction if they are never able to control the entire government.
What about rights not listed in your "Bill of Rights", those that may exist in the future. What you are suggesting sounds like limiting freedom of the future generations based on current situations. Also, I'm sure that bill of rights you mentioned sure helped the British protect their rights from a tyrant, totally not like we just fought a war to be free from their rule.
The structure of the new government we are trying to form would be much more effective at protecting liberty just by its nature. A man cannot be oppressed by a majority with government force if the majority doesn't have control of the government and vice versa.
Would the defense of Liberty be considered Tyranny? We almost lost our war in defense of our ideas due to a lack of resources from the states. How can they be trusted to defend our new union from those who would wish to subjugate us? A new federal army wouldn't inhibit liberty, for the funding given to them would be assigned by Representatives of the people. According to the Federalist papers written by Alexander Hamilton "A two-year funding limit ensured that if the federal standing army became oppressive, voters could reject the offending incumbents in the next congressional election in favor of new legislator who would carry out the will of the people"
In my most humble opinion, It is abhorrent how little taxing power the central government has. How can we as a nation be expected to compete with a dynamic and changing world if we can't even collect funds? Those opposed may say something along the lines of any federal tax being unjust or liberty demeaning. I would say on the other hand, that the tax is liberty protecting, for it is used to fund the common defense of the people from those who would wish to take those freedoms away.