CreateDebate


Unidolphin02's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Unidolphin02's arguments, looking across every debate.

I completely agree. Iran keeps majority of its fund in bonyads. These bonyads keep money stored for anything the supreme leader wants. So, the money does not go back into the economy. If we continue to give $150 billion dollars to Iran, we are continuing to support terriosm, state-wide and global.

The biggest problem with the Iran Nuclear Deal is that it is a temporary fix for a long term problem. The deal gives the US about ten years of no nuclear warfare, but we all know that there is not a real diplomatic relationship between the US and Iranians. This deal is more of a way to appease the Iranian government. Moreover, Iran would receive long term benefits for such a short term fix.

The younger generation of Iran is unable to have any real say in their government. While they have the ability to vote, candidates are all vetted by the religious clergy. This means this "more educated" population have no real say in what truly happens in Iran.

Iran has a radical, theocratic government that can not be trusted. While their government does have elected presidents, their presidential candidates are vetted by a theocratic-driven group of people who work for the supreme leader. The supreme leaders have been seen as against anti-western, like Khomeini who was in charge of the American hostage crisis. Also, they do support the idea of going to war, as we have seen with the Iran-Iraq War. The young, liberal people of Iran does not have any real say in who runs their government either. The government is controlled by one religious authoritarian.

3 points

Even though we cannot deny the fact that Iran has normal citizens and a young population of people, we can not throw a blind eye to the fact that those people would not even receive the funding that Iran would receive when sanctions are lifted. The money would go to bonyads and to the Revolutionary Guard. The assets that they would receive would not even benefit the citizens of Iran because it would be used to fund terrorists groups and other things that they see fit to resist westernization. Moreover, the Iranian government is a theocracy, therefore, the people do not have much of a say in their government. --CW

4 points

The nuclear deal lifts economic pressure off of Iran. If US, UN, and EU sanctions are lifted, it puts more money in Tehran. They would use this money fund terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran funds Hezbollah to harass the Isralei people in Lebanon. They do this because they want to resist westernization, and this also harms our Isralei allies. Why lift economic pressure when they are against westernization? --CW

4 points

While the Nuclear Deal allows us to have inspections, Iran is able to block the inspections from occurring allowing them to hide stuff from our country. Iran has the right to challenge the need for a surprise inspection. This gives Iran a window of 24 days before the inspector is able to legally come and inspect. During this time, Iran will be able to hide any suspicious equipment and nuclear weapons that they are in the progress of building. Also, if Iran is able to follow the deal for 10-15 years, Iran will have the time frame they need to build a nuclear weapon without having to take out funding from the countries. The time they need is about a year, especially if they have been storing uranium and cleaning it during their 10 years of following the agreement.

5 points

Choosing to support the Nuclear Deal will allow Iran to have more money to fund national terroism. Iran is the biggest funder for global terroism, for groups such as ISIS. Iran, also, has executed more people than anyone, including China. Iran has executed more than 1000 Americans. The Nuclear Deal says how countries, including America, will give Iran $150 billion dollars for any use. Also, Iran has blatantly said how they wish to eliminate Israel, an ally and asset of America. So, if we choose to give $150 billion dollars to Iran, we are possibly ensuring the demise of Israel and the increase in global terroism.

Congress can stop or slow down executive agreements that the President issued. Congress can tell another country to not approve a President’s agreement. Congress can trial the President for impeachment in case the agreement was for Presidential gain. Congress can create laws that block the treaty in some way. Congress is more powerful because they can slow down the President's ability to create executive agreements.

Congress can has power over the bureaucracy to slow them down or stop them. Congress can cut funding to federal agencies and that agency will die. Also, Congress can impeach members of the agencies. Another thing, Congress has the power to override regulations made, by the bureaucracy, that they do not approve of, or if they feel like it has a purpose that gives an advantage to certain people. Lastly, Congress is in charge of approving agencies. That is why Congress has power to hurt the bureaucracy giving them more power than the President.

Congress can slow down the President. Congress has the power to overturn an executive order by passing legislation that invalidates it. Congress can also refuse to provide funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. Another reason is, Congress can create bills that slow down the President’s executive order. Congress has the powers needed to slow down the President.

Congress has the power to confirm the President’s nominees and actions which gives them power over the President. Congress can write a letter to a country and tell them to not sign a treaty with our President. The Senate can also approve presidential appointments; such as cabinet members, federal judicial appointments, ratify treaties and try the President for impeachment. The House of Representatives have the power to impeach the president. Congress controls the President and other members of his Executive Branch.

Congress has the power to control the war effort. Congress has the power to declare war, which is written in the Constitution, Section 8. Congress also is in charge of creating spending bills that provide money to support the army and navy. Another word for their power over creating spending bills is the Power of the Purse. If Congress were to cut funding to the military, then the military will die. The War Powers Act of 1973 was also created to allow Congress to control the President. The President has to consult with Congress within 48 hours before using military force. Congress could also withdraw military forces from the war effort if the President did not get consent from Congress before sending out troops. These provisions just allowed Congress to prevent the President from sustaining in a war without consent.

Congress can create laws which gives them more power then the President. For example, Congress has the enumerated power to create laws which is written in the Constitution, Section 8. Also, Congress has the power to override a President’s veto, if the President vetoes Congress’s bill. And once Congress votes for overriding the veto, the President is irrelevant and the bill is passed into a law. Since Congress has the power to create laws without the President, they are, therefore, more powerful.

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



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