CreateDebate


Lit-flamingo's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Lit-flamingo's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Executive privilege gives the President more power because it gives them transparency. The president has the right to keep anything secret if they wanted to but Congress doesn’t, they have to list out what they are doing clearly in a congressional record. In 1991, George Bush invoked executive privilege to allow Dick Cheny, the defense secretary at the time, to not have to turn over documents subpoenaed by Congress for a congressional investigation into a Navy aircraft program. The president has much more freedom to do anything they want without letting Congress get involved.

0 points

For Congress

The President is able to appoint heads of federal agencies and with that he can control through these leaders in his party how money is spent in this department and what rules are being made. The president has the enumerated power stated in the Constitution. Article 2, Section 2 states, “...when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices…”. This power to hire and appoint these leaders gives him leverage because of these peoples jobs are literally in his hand and if he wants to he can fire them without question.

1 point

For Congress

One reason the President is more powerful than Congress is Executive orders allow the president to make decisions faster than congress, which makes them more powerful. Executive orders require no action from congress and act like laws. The President gets to work around the long process of Congress. Congress can take up to 6 months to make a decision and that’s way too long if quick action is needed. This is an inherent power that only the president has so, the only person able to undo or disregard an executive order is another president, not Congress. An example of this is Trump just launched a drone attack on ISIS Leader with an executive order. In cases like this, the country may be under attack or threatened and decisions will need to be made in haste to guarantee the nation's security.

2 points

The problem with a big democracy is that the elite’s will not be able to fully represent everyone. Elites do not appeal to the needs of everyone in the nation. As we grow more and more as a country in the future, it will be harder to equally represent everyone and know everyone that you are representing. Elites will become very detached from the needs of the different and large amount of people being represented.

2 points

The Bill of Rights would not only protect our individual rights but would also limit the amount of power the government would possess. It would guarantee that the peoples rights are safe and will not be infringed at all, no matter what. The system of checks and balances does not completely guarantee the possibility of one branch of government being more powerful than the other.

2 points

Standing armies take away liberty from the people. If they are used for tyrannical reasons no one will be able to stop them from harming the States. A militia will be much more organized and under strict direction from the people. They cost a lot less than standing armies as well.

3 points

Federal Courts

Us Anti-federalists believe that the state courts will be nothing but "a clog upon the wheels in the government of the United States." The federal courts will work "to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority". When state courts are diminished, so is the ability of regular people to serve on juries and be tried by their peers. For example, Britain's government did not give fairly try people in court. People in America would be taken all the way back to Britain and would be shown no mercy in court. The federal government would also be too far away to understand the needs of the states. Therefore, they would not be able to make fair rulings in court like state courts would.

3 points

Necessary and Proper Clause

We Anti-Federalists think the idea of the Necessary and Proper Clause is ludicrous. This is just a way for the government to unfairly pass laws without the people’s say. It makes Congress the “supreme law of the land” and gives them “power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any department or office thereof.” (Brutus 2) This clause is very vague and this allows them room to pass any laws they deem necessary.



Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]