CreateDebate


Debate Info

38
24
Federalist position--YES Anti-federalist position--NO
Debate Score:62
Arguments:32
Total Votes:86
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Federalist position--YES (16)
 
 Anti-federalist position--NO (13)

Debate Creator

Thames(175) pic



Should the Constitution be ratified (first block)

Use the Federalist Papers, U.S. v. Lopez, McCulloch v. Maryland, and Brutus 1 to make your points.

Federalist position--YES

Side Score: 38
VS.

Anti-federalist position--NO

Side Score: 24
5 points

The Constitution should be ratified. The structure of the government and the limits that are placed on the government will strengthen our country. In Federalist paper 51, Madison states, "...where the constant aim is, to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other..." With this being said, Madison is stating the government is structured into branches that check each other. An example of this is the Congress having the power to declare war and the executive having the power to send troops out of the country (Commander-in-Chief). In addition, there are also a list of enumerated powers included in the Constitution to limit the powers of the Large Republic. Federalists included this list to limit the powers of the federal government which controls the federal government as well.

Side: Federalist position--YES
DynamicW(10) Disputed
2 points

The constitution's checks on the branches of federal government are rendered useless when clauses such as the Supremacy clause and the Necessary and Proper clause are included in the document. They are so vague that the different branches of the government could justify almost anything through those clauses and still technically be within their powers.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
mightyknight(9) Disputed
2 points

I understand your point, but those clauses are only applied when order needs to be instilled. For example, the court case of McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supremacy Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause were utilized. There was federal bank established and there were branches were across the country. One bank was established in Maryland, and Maryland decided to tax that branch. The Supremacy Clause had to be used to check the state. A state can not tax the federal government. In addition, in order for commerce to flow it is necessary and proper for a federal bank to be established. These are the ways the Supremacy Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause were intended to be used. In addition, the branches of government do not justify almost anything through those two clauses because of judicial review. Additionally, there was one court case when the federal government was trying to stretch a clause too far. In the cause of United States v. Lopez, the SCOTUS ruled that the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1999 was unconstitutional and the use of the Commerce Clause was being stretched too far. Therefore, the constitution's checks on the branches of the federal government are not rendered useless; in fact, they are utilized to prohibit the branches from overpowering one another.

Side: Federalist position--YES
FearlessObse(6) Disputed
1 point

Well you brought up the system of checks and balances..how does it work when our government is in a split government like it is now. Checks and balances don't work when the government itself lets other branches run the country like a diplomat..I.e Trump. Brutus 1 gives the example that if you ratify a few rich people that will rule over the rest of the people in the country. Also, Checks and balances are useless when you have clauses like Supremacy and Necessary and Proper clause is so BROAD. "The powers given by this article are very general and comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing almost any law." They might decide that abolishing state government is necessary and proper!!

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
4 points

I believe we should have a constitution because it sets the bar of expectations for the rest other country. Based on, Federalists 10 it defended the form of republican government proposed by the Constitution. Critics of the Constitution argued that the proposed federal government was too large and would be unresponsive to the people,but i believe that the constitution will allow enlightened leaders to rule.

Side: Federalist position--YES
phantomkilla(1) Disputed
1 point

If "enlightened rulers" are in power in our country, the voice of the REAL people will not be heard. The representatives will be over such a large population of people and will be so far from their people, that they won't know who they are representing, nor what is truly happening in that state, according to Brutus 1. A federal government is not for the voice of the people.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
drukenwizard(12) Disputed
1 point

thats why we have elections so the people we closely relate to and feel they could change our lives for the better, we elect them.

Side: Federalist position--YES
Tnicks21(2) Disputed
1 point

why would you want a constitution that kind of absolute power can grow to large and be abused on several different occasions. An example of a abuse of power is the court case US VS LOPEZ. That was a commerce case clause the federal government felt like they had the right to intervene in state matters because of the commerce clause. There was no where in their list of enumerated powers where it says the federal government controls the educational system but because of all this power the federal government will continue to basically do what they cause their constitution is the "supreme law of the land"

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
drukenwizard(12) Disputed
1 point

But Scotus ruled it was unconstitutional so we do have courts that go by the law to make sure that the federal government dosen't broadly use its power

Side: Federalist position--YES
Thames(175) Clarified
1 point

What part of the Const. do you see the framers trying to get enlightened leaders in the top positions of power?

Side: Federalist position--YES
4 points

The Constitution should be ratified to create a big republic for a better representation of the people and their interests. With a bigger pool of interests and talents it would be less likely for there to be a common motive where majorities would invade for their own self interests. With a greater group of voters, better representatives will be chosen to represent the average person as well as being able to act on long term interests. Extreme views would force majorities to take broad viewpoints so they would be less likely to be in the national government.

Side: Federalist position--YES
phantomkilla(1) Disputed
1 point

How will a big republic accurately represent the people??? The large representatives are not in the states and see the struggles us farmers are facing. It is not fair for us to be represented by an elite, when we are not. We deserve to be locally represented with small state governments so our issues are actually addressed.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
RuffDespera(3) Disputed
1 point

We deserve to be locally represented with small state governments so our issues are actually addressed.

Elites could still dominate a small government and possibly have way more power than elites would in a large government. The elites in the smaller government would have a easier time using gaining and controlling power because there will be a smaller population size so less elites they have to compete with. Also, the smaller state government would have less politicians in office, so it would be easier to bribe.

Side: Federalist position--YES
th_contender(2) Disputed
1 point

With a big republic there are several interests clashing so only the best arguments and interest for the people come to view where everyone can have long term goals for the better of the people. The state governments have already been given great freedom to discuss their own issues and instead all that was done was that the majorities have abused their power for their own self interests. Such as stated in Federalist 10, "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity," people will very likely do things in their own favor and disregard others and if we keep state governments only there could be others who will take advantage of the divisions created to raise themselves to higher power. Such as with Shay's rebellion where the moment those who rebelled gained office into the government they cleared their debts looking to fix their own problems not knowing the effects this would take on the rest of the population.

Side: Federalist position--YES
3 points

The Constitution should not be ratified because it controls majority factions from tyrannizing over the minority. The Constitution can control the factions with two distinctions, a representative government, and the size and population of the United States. The election of representatives will tend to control the factions or minimize them by people choosing men with good will who may “best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” - Federalist No. 10.

Side: Federalist position--YES
RuffDespera(3) Clarified
4 points

*The Constitution should be ratified because it controls majority factions from tyrannizing over the minority. The Constitution can control the factions with two distinctions, a representative government, and the size and population of the United States. The election of representatives will tend to control the factions or minimize them by people choosing men with good will who may “best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” - Federalist No. 10.

Side: Federalist position--YES
3 points

Yes, the Constitution should be ratified because a central government could best protect the rights and freedom of individual citizens. They felt like the Bill of Rights was not enough and a new constitution was more sufficient.

Side: Federalist position--YES
3 points

I believe the constitution should be ratified because if you are going to be a unified government you need universal laws from a universal government. If Alabama and Texas had completely different laws what ties them together in a country. It would be more like allies at that point. If a country is going stay as one then they need to make laws that hold every one together and then laws that are region specific that wouldn't work nation wide should be left to the states.

Side: Federalist position--YES
1 point

Without a strong central government, the future of the country would be in jeopardy. In a nation run by many small republics, states, majorities would be very easy to form factions within the small, local governments. The majority in these cases would be in favor of farmers and debtors. Laws would be passed for debt forgiveness and would drive the nation into the ground in the future. Federalist Paper 10 shows us how a strong central government would limit the power of factions in the states. It would allow for normal people to vote for elites that have similar ideas to represent them and fight for laws that would favor the people and the future.

Side: Federalist position--YES
WackoAssassi(15) Disputed
1 point

We built this country on democracy, having small republics benefits all the people in this country, not just farmers and debtors. These "elites" will abuse the power that the large republic gives to them. Abuse of power is never the answer in a government made for the people.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO

Federalists protect the federal government from using powers to broadly. In the U.S. supreme court case U.S. vs. Lopez, Scotus ruled that the federal government was using the commerce clause too broadly. This ruled in favor of the state government. So, I believe that the federal government is powerful but also have obstacles put in place to keep the federal government from using powers too broadly.

Side: Federalist position--YES
3 points

The Constitution should not be ratified because this gives the Federal government TOO much power. They monitor things they should have no power over. Like the U.S. v Lopez case when the federal government thought they could control guns usage. In the Constitution's enumerated powers list, there is nothing talking about guns. The federal government took the Commerce Clause way too far. The federal government will start passing laws way in advance of anything happening. "...this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liberty- if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this only remaining asylum for liberty will be [shut] up, and posterity will execrate your memory."

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
2 points

The constitution should not be ratified because it would give the government to much control over the states and things that should be decided upon locally. Most complained that the system threatened liberties , and failed to protect individual rights.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
Midnightwach(1) Clarified
2 points

The Constitution should not be ratified because it controls majority factions from tyrannizing over the minority. The Constitution can control the factions with two distinctions, a representative government, and the size and population of the United States. The election of representatives will tend to control the factions or minimize them by people choosing men with good will who may “best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” - Federalist No. 10.

Side: Federalist position--YES
mightyknight(9) Disputed
1 point

Although it seems that individual rights are not protected, the structure that the Constitution instills creates a double layer of protection of individual rights citizen. James Madison argued how the structure of the government (national government and state government) and the division of branches protect individual rights. An example of this protection comes from the court case of U.S. v. Lopez. Lopez was caught on school grounds with a gun, and due to an act passed to years prior, Lopez was most likely going to face federal charges. The federal congress was trying to use the commerce clause to justify why Lopez should face federal charges. On the other hand, the state of Texas utilized the list of enumerated powers to convey that the federal congress had no power to pass Gun Free School Zones act and that power is reserved to the state (10th amendment). The SCOTUS sided with the state of Texas. Therefore, the Constitution does not fail to protect individual rights; in fact, it creates a double barrier of protection for individual rights.

Side: Federalist position--YES
2 points

The Constitution should not be ratified, as the government should not have such a large amount of power. We have just exited the Revolutionary War, and we should not give birth to an overbearing power like the one we just managed to emancipate ourselves from. As stated in Brutus I, the constitution allows the government to make decisions based on how "necessary and proper" they are, which is such a vague term that the government could theoretically apply it to, such as abolishing state governments to have full control. This also applies with their "supremacy" Clause, which would make them have true rule over any other governments within the country. This extreme reach of power was shown extremely well through US V Lopez, as the government used the vague Commerce Clause to reason that guns appearing on a school campus would result in house prices dropping and lower education leading to lower level employment. In the end, the Supreme Court agreed and stated that this reach went against the constitution, but what would happen if the Supreme Court came to side with the Federalists? When that happens, all hope is lost, and we shall return to the rule we escaped from.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
RuffDespera(3) Disputed
1 point

As stated in Brutus I, the constitution allows the government to make decisions based on how "necessary and proper" they are, which is such a vague term that the government could theoretically apply it to, such as abolishing state governments to have full control.

If the Constitution didn't have a necessary and proper clause then their powers would be limited and easy to get around. When you have a list of powers that limits your powers. The improper clause at the end is just for extra protection in case a decision needs to made that wasn't listed or based around the list of their powers they stated.

Side: Federalist position--YES
1 point

No, the Constitution should not be ratified. The new national government would be too powerful and threaten individual liberties, with the absence of a bill of rights. A stronger government will threaten the sovereignty and reputation of the states and the individuals. Like in Brutus 1, the bill of rights was necessary to protect the people of gov't because giving the federal government lots of power can result in people to sacrifice their liberties. Which means that anything can happen to the people and that big governments result in more representation of elites and less of other people.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
mightyknight(9) Disputed
1 point

Without the Bill of Rights, individual liberties would still be protected. In fact, a list actually limits powers. The structure of the Constitution protects individual rights by providing a double barrier of protection. In addition, the people still have power. They are able to vote for representatives in the lower house of Congress. Therefore, their opinions, ideals, and concerns are in reach of the people that make the changes to society. In addition the new national government would be broken down to ensure that it is not too powerful. The government is divided into three branches and the most powerful branch is divided into two branches. These parts are created to work against each other. In addition, each branch of government has an enumerated list of powers that limits their abilities.

Side: Federalist position--YES
1 point

Brutus 1 states: "...by them, the manner of choice and the number chosen, must be such, as to possess, be disposed, and consequently qualified to declare the sentiments of the people; for if they do not know, or are not disposed to speak the sentiments of the people..."

Representatives in a large republic can't possibly know the people they represent. Smaller republics are necessary for knowing what the people actually want and to get a personal connection to the people they represent. "...in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments(feelings), and integrity, to declare the minds of the people..." In a large republic, the "minds of the people" will be the majority of the side they are on. You won't get to hear out every side of the particular matter, which is necessary to have a successful government.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
1 point

The Constitution should not be ratified. Big government means slower process. This will lead to a situation where nothing gets passed and progression in the country will come to a halt.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
0 points

Anti-federalists did not support the constitution because they knew it would violate people's rights. without a bill of rights they knew the constitution wouldn't protect citizen's rights. the constitution should not be ratified because congress has to much power. they pass laws that go to far. the constitution has a list of enumerated powers that they have over the states. An Example, of the federal government abusing their power is a federal court case called US VS. LOPEZ in this court case the federal government uses the commerce clause as a justification of why they could charge a 18 year high school senior with felony charges even though the rights to education and schools was left up to the states. there was no where in congresses list of enumerated powers that it states that they have the power to infer in school dealings. the constitution explains in there amendment and listed powers of how its the supreme law of the land. According to Brutus 1, " the government is to possess absolute and uncontrollable power, legislative, executive and judicial, which respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8." the constitution created one sole power to control all 50 states but these laws are stretched and abused because the government made it to where states have less power to govern themselves

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO