Should the Constitution be ratified?
Yes! Federalists
Side Score: 45
|
![]() |
No! Anti-Federalistst
Side Score: 34
|
|
|
2
points
We are in an economic crisis. Which does not only affect us, but the future of our new nation. The states can not merely decide how to run them as it not only them facing this economic failure, but the country as a whole. "A house divided against itself can not stand." We are all facing the uncertainties. The country and our states are bankrupt and in considerable debt. The United States has no effective currency and no reserve bank to regulate it. We need a plan and the Constitution gives us one. Side: Yes! Federalists
With the failure of the Articles of the Confederation, the states are way to overly democratic. They have created majority factions that have dominated legislation in favor of themselves. It has gotten so bad to the point debtors are paying off debt in CARROTS!! This is why we need to move away from a direct democracy and with a large republic, we can squash these majority factions! With a large republic, there will be so many different opinions, it'll make it hard to form a majority and that majority will not stay a majority for long. Also, with a large republic, it is hard to corrupt officials due to how tedious and hard the system is built. These large factions also will allow representation from the population in our government. The constitution in turn will equal out the playing field and allow more equality and fairness for the minority. Side: Yes! Federalists
How about, just hear me out, we ratify the Articles? They were made in a different time, it should just be fixed up to better suit our new nation. While I do believe that majorities could pose a problem if unchecked, part of democracy is having the ability to form a majority to have a general opinion. And on another note, a large republic is STILL able to be corrupted. You are basically running on an honor system and checks and balances to work. Men are still able to be corrupted. For instance, a member of the house could be bribed to make a single vote to change the outcome of a greatly influential bill. Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
You are one to talk about "running on an honor system". The government created under the Constitution will be much more reliable and trustworthy because it does not rely on any group of people. And also "made in another time"? It was around ten years ago! Side: Yes! Federalists
There will be no matter what a majority, but with the constitution, it won't guarantee the majority their power for long as eventually the majority could become minority. I agree that men are still be able to be corrupted, but with a large republic, it'll allow corruption to happen less compared to past governments like small republics. Side: Yes! Federalists
2
points
In Federalist 51 James Madison says, “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” The Legislative branch is TOO powerful and TOO democratic. When the people vote, only the majority will be represented. This would cause a tyranny of the majority. Also commoners should not have control on things like the country's taxes or they would have access to pass ridiculous forgiveness laws. Through the Articles of Confederation people were paying things in carrots!!? Where you have too much power you must restrict it. Side: Yes! Federalists
1
point
but with federal government in charge all that the people have worked for will be taken away! The states need to be in charge. The people should be in charge not the elite. You says commoners should not have control on taxes but that is the only fair thing to do. With a large republic we will be taxed to death! States will be brought down Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
1
point
The money that we tax on people essentially goes back to the people. Taxes pay for schools, teachers, and many government programs that benefit you. You do know that the reason why Revolutionary War veterans did not receive a paycheck was because we did not have any taxes. Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
1
point
The Constitution will protect us as citizens. There is no need to fear it or the tyranny Anti-Federalists believe will come along with it. There is strict limit on the powers of the president and there is a checks and balances system in place to protect our rights. Side: Yes! Federalists
2
points
1
point
I do declare that we the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our prosperity. Do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America. The Constitution will create a Federalist government that will provide equal and checked out power for all of America, from levels of the states down to the very individual. A government with power is required, but this does not mean they will receive all the power, it will be made equal. All people were created and equal, shall be treated equal, and given an equal opportunity. Side: Yes! Federalists
0
points
Yes, of course the Constitution should be ratified. Interstate commerce between the states is terrible right now! Because of the way the Articles distribute power, trade can barely function between the states because the states have almost all of the power! Between this and Shay's rebellion and what it stands for, I see no reason to not ratify the Constitution. Side: Yes! Federalists
1
point
1
point
Although it may appear as the states have all the power, on the contrary, we do not believe this is so. The states are feel inferior to the central government - we have no power. The states have no money, little power, and cannot be represented fairly. With change, the states must dwindle away and confide to national power, leading to no representation for the states. Side: Yes! Federalists
1
point
0
points
1
point
The constitution is there for a reason, it is a stronger form of government and keeps the states focused on the country as a whole rather than just their states, which in turn makes us stronger and harder to be easy pickings for enemies(which at that time would have been a serious concern). If we look at history we can see that decentralization is almost always inferior for states, since they are less strong and create more faction problems between the states(and within the states). Centralized states on the other hand take into consideration and create a compromise to get goals done and take what they need for their collective betterment. Side: Yes! Federalists
1
point
0
points
Of course, we should ratify the constitution. Some may say that the constitution is going to cause too much gridlock. Yes, it will cause gridlock but this gridlock is what drives our government. To explain, the constitution is made so that we have debates in order to bring up both sides of the argument. Once both sides of the argument are brought up, we take a deep look at both sides and then make the most sensible decision from there. Not just this, we know that humans are selfish and only look out for themselves. So how can we use this selfishness to our advantage? Checks and Balances. Through checks and balances, we can have different people with different ideas to debate and check on each other to ensure that the best decision is made. Side: Yes! Federalists
2
points
1
point
0
points
Yes the Constitution should be ratified. The nation is in shambles. Interstate commerce is almost completely paralyzed. Money has a completely different value anywhere you travel and there is no way to protect ourselves against the other world powers that might come our way. What needs to happen is a strong central government needs to be created. There needs to be a central currency and there needs to be a trained standing army for times of crisis. Side: Yes! Federalists
|
2
points
2
points
1
point
Personal rights WILL be protected, you are just being ignorant!!! We are protecting the rights of the minority parties and beliefs by giving them a chance to have equal representation. You want small republics which will give the majority party rule over the rest. However, if we have larger republics, majorities will be much harder to form. Side: Yes! Federalists
1
point
This sort of perspective is that of someone divisive, you cannot have a unified country that is decentralized into states, the state will begin to matter more than the collection of the country and at this point, you get warring city-states squandering under the name of "country" Side: Yes! Federalists
1
point
Ofcourse personnel rights will be protected. If they were not protected it is your right as an American to do something about it. A strong central government will give the nation a sense of security against threats and for the first time will allow our economy to thrive. Side: Yes! Federalists
1
point
Of course our rights will remain protected with the new constitution. However, TOO much democracy given to the people will essentially create a huge majority and a small minority. The majority will essentially overrule everyone and will result in a tyrannical government. For example: In Salem, Massachusetts the majority had complete control on how the town ran. If the majority blamed someone in the minority. That person in the minority had no choice but to join the majority or die. Side: Yes! Federalists
0
points
3
points
2
points
2
points
This Constitution cannot be ratified! When have you ever seen a republic of such size? It can't possibly work. The purpose of a Republic is to be properly represented in legislature. How could a politician know his constituents if there are too many to know? Even more, centralized and far away!? Blasphemy! Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
2
points
1
point
Although the new constitution presents a large republic, the large republic is controlled by having an executive, legislative, and judicial branch. The articles of confederation are too vague and it does not even have a court system?? There are so many things that need to be ratified unless you want more "Shay Rebellions" to pop up through out the country. Side: Yes! Federalists
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
The Constitution creates a unitary government which is bad for our society. We need states to be in charge where no large republic is visible. The constitution doesnt even allow us to make our own money anymore. All the federalist leave the states with is direct taxes which is horrible. Therefore we need small republics. Only good things happen in small republics. Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
1
point
A unitary government means the national government has all the power. The new constitution would actually be a federal system. We would have a large republic controlled by an executive, legislative, and judicial branch. The legislative branch ensures that the people get a say. Also this creates a federal system where the states can check the national government and the national government can check to states. Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
1
point
1
point
1
point
In a small republic,there is greater chance that a majority faction will develop and oppress the people. In a large republic, these is less chance that this will occur simply because the nation is so vast and because there are so many interests present. Only bad things happen in small republics. Hegemony is made easier in smaller republics than large ones. Large ones distribute the power, leading everyone to have their voices heard and their ideas represented. Side: Yes! Federalists
1
point
1
point
The constitution will actually create a form of checks and balances which will never allow one branch of the government to gain too much power. A central government will also allow your money to be worth the same anywhere you go in the nation. All in all the constitution will allow for an overall stronger and more secure country. Side: Yes! Federalists
1
point
The Constitution should NOT be ratified!! It gives the federal government way too much power, especially with statements like the Necessary and Proper Clause. With that they could literally just say anything way necessary and proper and then the government could get away with whatever it wanted. That and it saying it's the "supreme law of the land" is such a bad idea! Having a central government would take away representation from the people in the areas they are governing. How are they supposed to know what's good for us if they have completely different economic and social statuses? That's the thing, they just can't :/ Side: No! Anti-Federalistst
The claim that "having a central government would take away representation from the people" is far from what the constitution stands for. The constitution allows fair representation from the the people as the people can elect representatives into the House, in which they can fight for what the people represent. They can keep the other bodies of government in check as the House is basically made for the people. Side: Yes! Federalists
|