CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:97
Arguments:79
Total Votes:100
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Should the Constitution be ratified (first block) (74)

Debate Creator

Thames(216) pic



Should the Constitution be ratified (first block)

The federalists and anti-federalists have different arguments when answering this question. Each one of you give your best two arguments in 4-7 sentences then interact with arguments on the opposite side.

Pull from Federalists 10, 51, and Brutus I
Add New Argument
6 points

I believe fully in the Articles of confederation. They are perfect for our country and we need them to maintain freedom. The free citizens of America do not need a king or a controlling tyrannical government. We need to let states rights control everything. If we have a strong central government it will ruin everything. We will be taxed to death and put down if we disagree. This so called large republic form of government is tyranny at its finest. In our form of government the people get to vote not just representatives. These so called representatives will not represent us at all and they will vote however they like. The Articles of Confederation just need to be strengthened, it is not time to rip away all that we have built and establish this dictatorship. The people and freedom are what is important in this government and we cannot as free men allow a government to rule over us as kings. Speaking of kings this executive branch is a terrible idea. The people of America should have the say and the power not just the elites.

2 points

I completely agree. We have worked way too hard for a government to take away everything. We will get taxed to no end. We will have no rights. I won't stand for this. If we put all of our power in a central government then they will only do things to better themselves. To better the elites. We will have no say in anything. There will be too many people for us constituents to even get a word in. The articles work just fine. I agree we could make some minor changes but nothing as extravagant as creating a strong central government.

1 point

I definitely agree with this because the articles of confederation give the states a good amount of power and with a little bit more work the articles could be even stronger. We have no need for a large republic. With a strong government over our heads, we won't be able to get anything done and we do not need to be subjects to a king again. The way our confederation is working right now is amazing because the people get to vote for what they want to be done. This way we don't need to have representatives that will be representing to many people in large area that will be doing their own agenda.

1 point

I totally agree! What they're describing in this constitution is basically a unitary government. If we support this constitution, the power of the people will most certainly be lost! We should just fix the Articles of Confederation and resolve this!

jkbishop22(3) Disputed
1 point

The articles of the confederation are slowing destroying freedom and will continue to do it. The AOC allow for tyranny of the majority which will rip personal liberties are security away from everyone at one point. To avoid having a king or tyrannical government we must have ways to protect our nation and keep it self reliant.

BurritoLunch(6607) Clarified
-6 points
lilszkol(3) Disputed
2 points

You're right, everyone is no less or more free which is why we need to establish this with the bill of rights. If you have one large central government established by the constitution they'll begin intruding in your personal lives and freedom. The government is primarily there to protect your rights and protect your freedoms. A large central government will try to dictate your actions based on their beliefs, when America is supposed to be based off everyone having an equal freedom(like you said) to do as they wish, as long as it doesn't affect someone else's freedoms and rights.

kmccormick22(7) Disputed
1 point

This debate is from the point of view of Anti-Federalists and Federalists. No one here means to step on any toes.

miniactivist(11) Disputed
1 point

Hi! This is a debate between federalists and anti-federalists about which is better: the constitution of the articles of confederation. What is your opinion? Keep in mind that this debate, the year is 1788.

1 point

I agree, under the Constitution we would have absolutely no freedom, and we would revert back to the tyranny we worked so hard to escape.

1 point

You're right, under the Constitution, we are not free. The Articles of Confederation would keep giving the states power and it would allow our country to be more free because there would not be a large republic.

1 point

I agree. The Constitution takes away too many of our freedoms in order to prevent factions from forming which ultimately does more harm than good. We have less freedoms under the Constitution than the Articles, which is why we simply need to reform the Articles as opposed to creating a new baseline document for our country (the Constitution).

AP-25 Disputed
1 point

Freedom in America does not directly correlate with freedom in any other country. Freedom by definition is "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." Under the Articles of Confederation people did exactly this. James Madison explicitly acknowledges that freedom is present among the people and essentially comes down to two solutions to solve the problem of there being too much freedom. But, once you start to take away the freedom of people problems arise. The same abuse of power that the Constitution says it is limiting, is the same abuse of power that they are using to keep the people under the authority under the Constitution.

3 points

The constitution proposed by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay is blatantly anti-american and would thrust our nation into a state of dictatorship. The biggest issue I have with this constitution is the "necessary and proper" clause. This clause states that the government of the United States may do anything necessary to protect the general welfare of the people. With this clause, anything may be done for the "general welfare" of the people. Our rights will be revoked and we will once again find ourselves subjects of a tyrannical government.

Scratchin(5) Disputed
1 point

Blatantly anti-American? Are you out of your mind!? The states under the current government, the Articles of Confederation is the most anti-American thing I've ever seen! The constitution our people are trying to make is the most American thing I've seen! You fail to realize something. Under the Articles of Confederation, people are forming factions and acting as separate countries! To the point where States are placing tariffs and fighting over border lines, to the point where the majority are using the government for their own selfish reasons. If you want to call something anti-American then its the Articles of Confederation. With our constitution we are trying to create a Central government that is a Big republic three branches to lean on. The Constitution is bigger than all of us, it'll be there for generations and generations to come. With the Articles of Confederation we would not last a decade.

3 points

Under no circumstances should the Constitution be ratified. By creating a position that makes one person "Commander in Chief" we are coming too close to the monarchy in England. It is too easy for this strong national government to transition into a complete dictatorship and we will once again face the tyranny we did with England. With this Constitution under the necessary and proper clause the national government could deem anything to be "for the good of the country" and just get away with it. In addition to that, the supremacy clause allows the national government to override state courts, and who knows the people of the state better than its own people?? By giving power to the states, you of course prevent any sort of dictatorship and control concentrated in one government. Furthermore, you have a smaller scale more local version of courts and therefore representatives who will know the people and region they're representing far better than a representative for an entire state. The Articles of Confederation are a far better fit for the kind of democracy this country needs right now, because under the Articles of Confederation, the power lies in the states and not a overpowered national government.

2 points

I completely agree that the Articles of Confederation are our best shot at remaining free in this country.

2 points

I agree fully with this. The articles give the states power and make sure the people are represented. The government will just take away our power and use it to do whatever they feel like, and they would be supported under the Constitution. We know our country best and our state best, and we deserve to be able to say what our people of our state wish to.

1 point

I agree with you on the national government easily becoming a dictatorship. Too much power is in their hands and if this constitution gets ratified we might as well say goodbye to our freedom.

2 points

Will the Constitution be effective in fixing our problems long term? NO! Just strengthen the Articles of Confederation. This was made with purpose of proposing a form of government that would as far away from tyrannical as possible and now your telling us we should digress back towards what we were all running away from in terror. That makes no sense. Yes, there are problems with the Articles but these problems can be fixed. Just like you claim this Constitution can be amended, so can the Articles. Why throw out an idea just because it has a few hiccups. Work smarter, not harder. You attempt to fix something before you try to completely rebuild it.

miniactivist(11) Disputed
2 points

In a sense, creating the Constitution IS a form of strengthening the Articles of Confederation. Under the Constitution, there is an elaborate system of checks and balances which forces politicians to control each other. For example, the President would have the power to veto a bill, but if he should unjustly veto something, the legislature can override that veto with a two-thirds vote.

LeafLotus(19) Disputed
1 point

How could the Constitution strengthen the Constitution when it is taking power away from the states and it is forming a large tyrannical republic.

eddiebae(7) Disputed
1 point

The checks and balancing protocol can only go so far. Most of everyone in the government will be elites, and they will do what they think is best for the elites. The government is not able to accurately represent everyone in out country.

2 points

The Articles of Confederation are perfect for our country. We have just seperated from Britain so what is the point of going right back into a form of government where the states have little power and we are being controlled by a large republic. The states need to have all of the power because a large republic would be the worst thing for this country. If we were to go into a large republic, the states would not be able to work how they would like in their own small republic. They would not be able to tax, make laws, or have the purely democratic form of government that they fought for. The Constitution would take all of those powers away from the states and give them to one large republic. If we simply strengthened the Articles of Confederation, we would be able to make America more stable and we would be able to let the states keep all of the powers that they have now. Without the powers that the states have now, we would digress back into the tyrannical form of government that we had to deal with in Britain.

Zoro(2) Disputed
1 point

The Articles of Confederation is too weak to keep our new found freedom afloat. With how things are going, we'll all end up broke from lack of taxes or killed by Native Americans from lack of military. The Articles of Confederation is too broken to fix, and the only solution is to ratify the Constitution. The Constitution will provide a strong central government to handle big issues for its citizens and while the states can continue to keep their local governments and policies. The structure of the Constitution allows power to be divided into three branches that will keep each other in check, preventing tyranny. And the delegates will be voted on by the people to provide a way for them to get their interests out there. The standing army will be able to properly protect its citizens from foreign invaders, and provide safety and security. The Constitution will allow for their to still be factions, only, their effects are controlled. Through this, we prevent majorities from running over minorities with their own selfishness. We must ratify the Constitution now!

Scratchin(5) Disputed
1 point

"what is the point of going right back into a form of government where the states have little power and we are being controlled by a large republic." We do not want to control the states, the large republic does not want to control you, the large republic instead wants everyone under a republic instead of small republics where it is easily usable by the common people to where they'll even clear their debts! The problem is the purely democratic nature of the current government! If the government was purely democratic, it would not be best for the nation as a whole, but for only the ones who manipulate the system. The country would not be stable, it would be unstable! There would be no law or order~!

2 points

The Constitution proposed is not the adequate choice for our new nation. Under the Constitution, there is a unitary government. This large national government has all the power. The states are left with little to none. When there is not a balance between national and state power, national governments will take over. Not only does the National government have an excess amount of power, it also outlaws militias, which have worked for as long as governments have been around. Taking away the power for the people to do what they want and fight who they want will result in discord. The power the states lose is not the only problem. There is also the issue of the national government being too big. When national governments get too big, they are susceptible of growing too large and becoming tyrannical rules with little democracy for the people. The Constitution and what it puts into place is everything we used to stand against and personally I believe it should still not be put into place and ratified.

LuckyKnight(5) Disputed
2 points

Actually the government would not be unitary. It would be a federal system where the power is spread out among different levels so no one person can become too powerful. Therefore, the states are left with plenty power to themselves. Also, because of the Federal system in our large republic, the government will not be spreading over too large of an area because ,again, the power will be spread out among different levels such a local, state, and national so that government is not spread too thin.

1 point

Agreed. It is not a unitary government, it is a federal system.

1 point

I agree with you, the large government has too much power

miniactivist(11) Disputed
1 point

When you look at it from afar, it does seem as if the government created by the Constitution is too powerful. However, if you take a closer look at its intricacies you will see why it is not. The most powerful body, the legislature, is controlled by representatives directly elected by constituents. Since this body is the most powerful, it is then split into two parts: the house of representatives and the senate. The House of Representatives is voted directly by the people. The executive branch (the electoral college) appoints the judicial branch. The senate then decides whether or not to approve them. This system is known as "checks and balances" and it is a system where the government controls itself through separation of powers.

1 point

I agree with you completely the government should not have this much control. We need to get the freedom back in this country. The people need to vote and their own choices. We do not need to be ruled by a tyrannical government and we need FREEDOM.

smileycyrus(6) Disputed
1 point

The Constitution should be ratified. The Articles of Confederation failed miserably, with no army, no navy, no power to tax, etc. The Constitution supports a strong central government, which is what the country needs!!! A strong government can fix the problems caused by the Articles.

1 point

I agree, the Constitution should be ratified. Change is not always bad and we can not just ignore our problems. We need to control the effects of factions and the best way we can do that is with a large republic.

2 points

The federalists want to create a large republic using the constitution, which as Brutus 1 stated, it would give too much power to the federal government and congress would be able to seize to many powers under the necessary and proper clause. The country was supposed to be all about democracy and the freedom of the people, but a huge central government having primary control over everything would take that away. Brutus also showed how the constitution lacked a bill of rights to protect and establish individual liberties. This was all just going to show how a large central republic would focus less on individual rights and more on giving power to the government instead, taking away more powers from the states.

1 point

yes i agree with you, I think you make a very valid point. If we have a large government, then we wont have as many freedoms. The whole point of america was to have a country based on democracy with a government to protect indivudal rights from other people. having a large republic disputes all of that.

1 point

The whole point of america was to have a country based on democracy

You don't have a democracy either. Democracy necessitates a politically informed electorate and a full range of political options. Americans get a choice between a moderate right capitalist party and a far right capitalist party. That obviously isn't anything even remotely resembling a democracy.

2 points

Under the Constitution, our rights to revolt will be revoked. While there is no blatant clause restricting the citizens from revolting, under this document we will not be able to. Once power is given up by the people, the only way to take it back is by force. The federal legislative is given the power to create armies at peace as well as at war. Our citizen militias will not stand a chance, and will eventually disband altogether. If we cannot form a militia then we cannot rise up against the tyranny that this government creates.

2 points

The constitution should not be ratified. In the constitution it has enumerated powers, but then you put the necessary and proper clause. With this clause the elite people say is necessary for their own selfish reasons. We won't go for this.

2 points

The national government will be way too far away to properly represent the people. How could you possibly know a person if you are not with them or at least in contact with the people. This is not a problem is small republics because representatives know their people and they know how to accurately represent them. Simply put, good things happen in small republics. People can conveniently assemble, be informed, and then vote. And it would be guaranteed that representatives have the "consent of the government". On the other hand, a large republic would ultimately represent those that have access and would have the means to remain informed. This would be the people that could pay their bills and those who could pay for the technology that would allow them to remain informed. Look at history, all republics have been small. Why change something that has helped us progress?

LuckyKnight(5) Disputed
1 point

While this is a very valid argument, the national government will never be too far away. under the constitution, the federal government will be able to supplant courts wherever they would like so that the people will always have order among them. Also, the people will vote on their representatives so that there troubles can be dealt with properly.

1 point

The constitution should not be ratified as the constitution will take away the people's rights, and those can not be just given back. We fought a war to be able to govern ourselves, and now they want to give the power back to a singular body. The constitution refers to itself as the supreme law of the land, and how will our people fit in with this? The government, if they are able to establish federal courts, will overtake our people who are in our state courts, and we will have no says in laws. The national government will cause the states to lose all the power they held as it adsorbs it all for itself. The government will not have enough representation for us to establish our points, and they will choose things that benefit them.

1 point

What we need, is small republic. In small republics, representatives are easily able to understand the needs of their constituents. In a small republic, there will not be forming of majorities, and therefore no gridlock. The government will be able to get things done. In a small republic, finally the people will be able to govern themselves by passing laws that they agree on. If these laws are not obeyed, a civilian army (militia) will help enforce these laws. In a large republic, the laws passed will not benefit everyone, and standing armies will be sent in when people do not follow these laws. However, with a small republic, the people will follow their laws as they write them for the good of their republic. We need a small republic.

bittah(2) Disputed
1 point

I disagree. A large republic is the solution for this mess. With a large republic there will be less cause for faction because there is a greater pull of talent and more voters. It will make it harder for unworthy candidates to enter the government.

1 point

The Constitution should not be ratified; it gives way too much power to the national government which can easily be taken away thanks to the "necessary and proper clause" that is included in the Constitution. What if, one day, the states are deemed unnecessary by the federal government and then all of their powers are taken away? Small republics are better than large republics and this has been proven multiple times in history by Montesquieu and in ancient Rome. Good things happen in small republics: the representatives are able to get to know their constituents, and majorities will be hard to form which creates a bad type of gridlock. If the Constitution were to be ratified, the national government could easily overthrow the state governments because the Constitution gives it the power to do so. This is the exact opposite of what Americans want.

1 point

If a large republic is created, constituents will be unable to keep an eye on elected officials and what they are doing with their power because they will be too far away. The elected representatives will simply enrich themselves and pass legislation that will benefit themselves. Human nature is selfish. People in power will not willingly make amendments to a document that would ultimately take away their power. I believe that the Articles of Confederation should be revised, but that the Articles should be the baseline document for our country.

1 point

No the constitution shouldn't be ratified because it failed to protect individual rights and the new government is too big and powerful. Like said in Brutus 1, our government consists of rich folk that will rule the citizens over and that's not right. That's a tyrannical aristocracy. Also, we don't need a huge republic because they would be too far away and it would be harder to form a majority with a huge government.

2 points

I agree, we would get nowhere with the Constitution because it is too tyranical and the states do not have enough power by themselves.

1 point

The constitution is a democracy killing document that will strip the people of their power that they fought so hard for. It calls itself the "supreme law of the land" and those fat elites want us to believe that we'll still have freedom under their national government. All that would be different from when we were subjects under King George would be that the King is right here in America. The vagueness of the elastic cause and the supremacy clause leave the states to the will of the federal government. If the state passes a law, the federal government can have their court overrule it and any law the federal government deems to be "necessary and proper" to the welfare or safety of the people it claims to represent will be passed without proper jurisdiction or approval from the states. If this Constitution is ratified, the states will become subjects under yet another King.

1 point

I stand with the Articles of Confederation. This new constitution will cause the states to become poor as they will take away our one true source of money and give it to the government, and they will tax us unfairly to receive all the money. States will fall as they do not want to heavily tax the people as this will make everyone upset and revolt. We will lose our sources of money and we will fall under a government who acts as a King in this sense. This constitution takes away the rights of the states and can cause a unitary government that will take away all our power. The causes, Supremacy clause and elastic clause, are way too far-fetched, and they will continue to take away our rights under these.

1 point

I agree with you. The Constitution will force our country into a state of tyranny because it gives entirely too much power to the federal government with the necessary and proper, elastic, and supremacy clauses. The states cannot tax people if the national government also taxes them because then the people will turn against the state governments and revolt. The Constitution will do more harm than good for our country.

1 point

federalist: The Constitution is necessary, whereas the bill of rights is not. when we give people the freedom they deserve, there will be inequality and difference, but to prevent this we have to make freedoms severely limited. we need a large republic with a strong central government with weaker sub-governments for the states. we do not want a dictatorship, this would cause the majority to rule and chaos among the group with dictators with pure democracy. we will have a increased variety of parties, thus giving us the advantage. we therefore reach for a republican remedy.

kmccormick22(7) Disputed
1 point

You will use your power to take away our freedoms. This will lead to a to a tyrannical rule and lead to us revolting in anarchy.

Zoro(2) Disputed
1 point

The Constitution will be not taking away your freedoms. It's a document in which it's structure of government will provide a liberated and prosperous. Its checks and balances will prevent from anyone becoming over powerful.

1 point

The Constitution helps to control these tyrannical effects of faction and prevent this foreseeable dictatorship, as it is the government's job to protect these rights, but with factions, these rights are violated, allowing the majority to grow. The more this majority grows, the more the economy is effected as the creditors experience the extremity of the debtors' debt forgiveness laws. A Constitution is vital for a large republic to thrive.

hsflamingo14(1) Disputed
1 point

The bill of rights are completely essential for the Constitution. Since the Constitution takes away a lot of our freedoms in order to "reduce the creation of factions", it is necessary that some of our rights can be fully protected by a government document. How would you feel if your freedom of speech was taken away by the national government? We absolutely have to have a bill of rights.

eddiebae(7) Disputed
1 point

So you are saying we do not deserve freedom after we fought so hard to get it? The bill of rights is incredibly important. A dictatorship is one singular person controlling a large group of people. An increase of variety of parties does not follow your first point of our rights gone. Parties are differing opinions.

BurritoLunch(6607) Clarified
1 point

So you are saying we do not deserve freedom after we fought so hard to get it?

You can't have freedom when you live in a hierarchy. If everybody was free to do what they wanted then a hierarchy couldn't exist because you would be free to say no. In America the people who say no go to jail, the same as everywhere else.

BurritoLunch(6607) Clarified
1 point

Let me give you an example.

Mohammed Ali refused to fight in Vietnam. The government stripped him of his boxing titles and gave him a five year prison sentence. That isn't freedom.

Drunken-Con(16) Disputed
1 point

There it is again. The elites telling us that our god given rights are not necessary. What is worse, a dictatorship or a tyranny? I know which one of those will form under your ridiculous idea of a large republic. You want to stop us from enacting our freedoms because you fear the elitist's losing control of the government to the common people.

1 point

The second that we let a standing army replace our civilian formed militias is when we hand over the power to execute unfair laws to a tyrannical government. The people need to make up militias to ensure that what the government is needing to enforce is approved by its own citizens. Once the government has that independent standing army that can execute its will with no questions asked is when we are suppressed and beat down by unfair legislation. Every standing army in the history of the world has been used to enforce unfair laws on their own brothers and sisters who are civilians just trying to get by. Britain did this to us, shooting and murdering its own subjects just to enact laws that were tyrannical in nature. No matter what, we cannot allow this to repeat.

1 point

By ratifying the Constitution we would return to our lives under a too powerful government. The majority holds very little power in a government created to benefit the minority. The Constitution is created by the wealthy and powerful and they will surely use it to take what they want from the regular people. The power in the new government would be abused. The Constitution also does nothing to protect the rights of the people so nothing could be done to stop this abuse.

Intellectual(6) Disputed
1 point

(federalist)

The central government is divided into three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. These branches are all elected or chosen in different ways by different people with different agendas so that a majority policy does not get forced on any single branch. The most powerful branch, the legislative branch, is even further divided into two sub-branches: the house and the senate. These divisions, paired with the checks and balances that they all have on one another, will keep tyrannical, unjust, and unconstitutional policies from reigning over our country. Does it not seem logical to have a strictly moderated system protect the rights of every citizen? A larger government does not have to mean less freedom. In fact, it can mean even more.

1 point

In this country and the principles we were founded upon, the states and people rightfully should have the power to control themselves and their own policies under their own individual legislatures. We should be focusing on strengthening the Articles of Confederation, a more democratic outlook on government. Under this new proposed constitution, the government will feel entitled to interfere in amendments and lawmaking which will mark the end of the popular government. The people will be subject to a controlling monarchy again; the days of the states will diminish under a newly created central government with renewed enumerated powers that were formally in the hands of the states. The states lose powers such as taxing, military and lawmaking. Under this government, a standing army will be made to enforce the executive orders against the differing opinions of the land, which will cause conflict. Local legislatures will lose the privilege of a militia to protect the laws that they voted to have. Instead, the national body hundreds of miles away will make decisions for all the land, with their laws trumping that of the majorities of state legislatures. Because of the decreased amount of majority vote in a national government, good laws will constantly be in gridlock because of the differing opinions.

Intellectual(6) Disputed
1 point

(federalist)

There is such a thing as too much democracy. The freedom you speak of is very important to the constitution, which is why there is such a large system in place. We must assume that because some people will be evil, and that all humans will reach for power where they can get it, that all will do this. The constitution creates a government that divides government powers among different branches and people, so that not one person or group of people can have too many powers. The most powerful branch, the legislative branch, is divided even further. Each branch has power over one another to make sure that the constitution is adhered to and that individual rights are protected. This way, a tyrannical majority in a state or further sub-government will not control the whole country. And, if an unconstitutional law or policy is set in place by a state, the central government can regulate it.

The issue with constituency is addressed by the system of federalism. The city/county representatives know their constituents very well, and the state can then communicate with these lower government officials. This way, people still have a large say about what happens in their closest community.

1 point

The articles of confederation are perfectly fine. Because with the constitution the government will be to powerful leaving the people powerless. The constitution with the federal courts will destroy states courts. Also if the government continues to grow and more and more people become apart of the nation it will be to hard to know how the people think. The government should be free and represent all people.

1 point

The Constitution is what the country NEEDS!!! A stronger federal government can fix what the Articles of Confederation messed up( no navy, no army,etc.)

1 point

(federalist)

One might argue that the Constitution infringes on the rights that are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. However, the current Articles are, in themselves, infringing on the rights that we want so badly to be protected. The government we have now does not protect citizens against the inevitable evils that will prevail in our government, for it is human nature to do whatever it takes to gain power, even at the expense of the values at our country's foundation. The intent is not to create a unitary government; we are creating a federation. Problems that have to do with smaller communities or states will be addressed in the states, but a central government of the country must preside over those governments so that majorities in the states do not tyrannically implement their policies over the entire nation. Humans will naturally create factionous majorities, for humans will gravitate towards power and there is power in majority. The government must be set up to control these majorities, and the constitution creates a federally divided government and a system of checks and balances to do just this. In order to really protect the american posterity's rights, we have to protect the posterity from itself; not every leader will be virtuous and just, but our government will.

1 point

The articles of the confederation are horrible and are going to destroy our country. By now there is many examples of problems that the AOC allowed such as shays rebellion. If we allow states to control everything we will not be able to act as a country and appear very weak to other countries. Although our central gov will be able to tax, your state taxes are already high due to the states not being able to make money. Taxing will help our country in so many ways and its the minimum you can do for a country that is fighting for you. Having representatives instead of pure democracy is how we protect our personal liberates. When we don't have representatives we end up making factious decisions such as paying dept back in carrots.Liberty leads to factions so when 1 person is representing a large group is makes it harder to have factions hurt others. Having a Constitution would not lead to a dictatorship because we have many levels of government that check each other out so they cant abuse power. One might say executive power would lead to a king, but isn't tyranny of the majority just as bad? Having a federalist form of government makes sure that the country is relying on itself to be good instead of people.

0 points

Anti federalist: The constitution should not be ratified, instead it should be replaced by the articles of confederation. We want more freedom, and we fear that the constution will not provide that for us. The new government with the constution will be too powerful, and threaten indivudial liberties. The central government would also become too powerful. the constutuion will put courts in the states and they will have more ppower of the supreme clause.

LDominator(6) Disputed
1 point

We need the Constitution to be ratified because we need a large republic. The Constitution lays out how a large republic will work. Factions create tyranny as state legislators become too democratic when the majority, which is made up of debtors and farmers, start passing laws that directly benefit them, but hurt the minority which consists of the rich creditors. This is opposite as the debtors pass laws in favor of debt forgiveness, which hurts the creditors. This majority, in turn, continues to grow and create tyranny in the government. We need to control the effect of factions, which the Constitution does by creating 3 branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. These branches work to keep the others in check, in order to balance their power to prevent this tyranny. We need the Constitution to control these consequences of factions.

zexy-assasin(3) Disputed
1 point

The Articles of Confederation fail to give guidance to the states. The government is too weak. There is too much democracy. Majorities are forming based on special interests; which, make minorities almost irrelevant. Shays' Rebellion should be a good enough reason to show you why we need the constitution ratified. How can there be more liberty and freedom when the amount we have now is destroying democracy. The Constitution needs to be ratified and make a large republic for the states. This does not mean that your freedom will be sacrificed. There will be a separation of powers that limits the power the government would hold.

jkbishop22(3) Disputed
1 point

If we got rid of the AOC and replaced it with a Constitution we would be much better off. Right now we may seem to ave freedom but the AOC allows for factions that hurt people. These factions are leading to tyranny and destroying freedom. The new government cant become too powerful due to it being self efficient. If the Central gov doesn't have more power our nation will fall apart.