CreateDebate


Debate Info

68
118
Federalist position Anti-federalist position
Debate Score:186
Arguments:87
Total Votes:196
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Federalist position (29)
 
 Anti-federalist position (56)

Debate Creator

Thames(131) pic



Should the Constitution be ratified (fourth block)

Confederation or Federation, that is the question.  Cover these topics in your debate and cite/quote Brutus 1 and Federalist 10: *Necessary and Proper Clause  *Supremacy Clause  *Bill of Rights  *Federal Standing Army  *New Executive and Judicial Branches

Federalist position

Side Score: 68
VS.

Anti-federalist position

Side Score: 118
5 points

Federalist favor a big republic over small to avoid having majorities that would use power to their own benefit. Point to the states….

Solution: The larger the population and republic, the less people will agree unless the position is very broad. For example, a majority at this time was the debtors, or farmer, who were using the power they gained for their own benefit and using it against the minority, or the creditors, by not paying back the debts they owed by passing debt forgiveness laws.

Side: Federalist position
Petty_Wizard(10) Disputed
4 points

The statement "The larger the population and republic, the less people will agree unless the position is very broad" is exactly why the United States should not have a large republic. This problem is directly addressed in Brutus I, "It is practicable for a country so large and so numerous as they will soon become to elect a representation, that will speak their sentiments..." If the people can't agree in a large republic then it creates gridlock. As it states in Brutus I, "Constant clashing of opinions; and the representative of one part will be continually striving against those of the other."

Side: Anti-federalist position
Tha_Genius(6) Disputed
2 points

Taking the power away from the majority doesn't get rid of factions. It just shifts the power to the minority. Now that the majority doesn't have power, the elite minority (who are the ones being put into the Senate) are getting their way and taking advantage of the majority. Now the minority is protected by the government and can exploit the debtors to gain more wealth.

Side: Anti-federalist position
Foolsamurai(15) Disputed
1 point

you take power away from all majorities and factions by creating a larger representation. the majorities may still have power on a smaller scale, but when put on a large, national, scale they will no longer be a majority and will no longer have power. The government is has checks and balances to make sure that no branch of government has more power than the other.

Side: Federalist position
RuffMenace(6) Disputed
1 point

The United States should not be run by a large republic because people won’t always agree on the same position and this will create gridlock. Gridlock will lead to two sides constantly arguing about a topic and not progressing as a country. According to Brutus 1, “In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood and more within the reach of every citizen.” This talks about how in a small republic, the citizens individual opinions matter, and there is less gridlock created.

Side: Anti-federalist position
WackoCommand(10) Disputed
1 point

The creation of a large republic would not not necessarily be beneficial to the country. While it would lead to less decisions geared toward certain groups, it would also lead to groups pushing against each other. When groups push against each other and nothing progresses, a gridlock is formed. It says in Brutus 1, "Constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other.” This quote is saying that each of the representatives won’t be working to make the country better but instead will be striving to prove the other wrong and get what they want to happen. When this happens the country will become dormant and not be improved.

Side: Anti-federalist position
5 points

The necessary and proper clause is important. Passing the necessary and proper clause gives congress the right to do what is in the best interest of everyone. The necessary and proper clause doesn’t give the government any more authority than they already have, and is practically a given power. Hamilton shows this when he says, “They are only declaratory of a truth which would have resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the very act of constituting a federal government, and vesting it with certain specified powers.”

Side: Federalist position
Petty_Wizard(10) Disputed
3 points

It is not necessarily true that Congress would "do what is in the best interest of everyone." Congress has the best interest of the majority faction because they are elected through popular vote. As it says in Article V of the Articles of Confederation, "For the more convenient management of the general interests of the united states, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct..." And as we know from Federalist 10 in which it states, "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man..." that the majorities will always vote in their own favor and interest. As for the statement "Doesn't give the government any more authority than they already have..." we know that people in power rarely want to give up their position in power. It states in Brutus I, "But remember, when the people once part with power, they seldom or never resume it again but by force." We can predict that by giving Congress so much power through the Necessary and Proper clause that they will ultimately just use it for their own personal gain.

Side: Anti-federalist position
mmcarey(5) Disputed
3 points

Although there are representatives for each state, the congress at this time was made up of representatives that were chosen not necessarily voted for. Those people don't represent the majority of the people but rather the minority who think that they are better. Those people will make laws to benefit themselves, while not taking in mind what the majority those such as farmers and those of labor work. And according to Brutus 1 those representatives “are supposed to know the minds of their constituents, and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind”. This pretty much means that representatives are supposed to look out for the good of the people and know what the people want. This clause however allows the interest of the public to be overlooked, making the public's opinion relatively useless.

Side: Anti-federalist position
Tha_Genius(6) Disputed
3 points

While this would be great in theory, even your own side has agreed that factions will act in their own interests. If the minority faction control the government, they can use the N and P clause to push their agenda under the guise that it's "for the betterment of everyone" when it is really only for the betterment of themselves and their associates.

Side: Anti-federalist position
WackoWarrior(12) Disputed
2 points

The necessary and proper clause is not necessary for our country. The necessary and proper clause allows Congress to make any laws it feels are necessary. This does not guarantee that Congress will do what is best for the people. The congress members are elected by a majority, therefore they will all have the same ideals which will lead to them making laws to help that majority. Federalist 10 says, “The latent causes of faction are thus shown in the nature of man.” This will not allow the minority to have a voice in the laws of their country.

Side: Anti-federalist position
RuffMenace(6) Disputed
1 point

The Necessary and Proper clause allows Congress to pass laws that benefit the minority, the elites. They will not pass laws that benefit everyone. The clause makes the public opinion pretty much useless. According to Brutus 1, “that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontroulable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers.” Most of these powers are against the public opinion and benefit the minorities, not everyone.

Side: Anti-federalist position
WackoCommand(10) Disputed
1 point

Although the Necessary and Proper Clause gives the right to do what is in the best interest for everyone, that does not always mean that they will. Many of the representatives within congress do not accurately represent their people but instead push for many of their own ideas and benefits. In Federalist 10 it says, “ The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man…” This quote means that it is people’s nature to side with the causes and agenda of the faction or group that they belong to. For example an elite representative might push for lower taxes on the rich in order to benefit not just themselves but their group as well.

Side: Anti-federalist position
5 points

Federalist wanted no bill of rights because they believe that your freedom and that your rights are limited. “Federalist viewed the Bill of Rights as a “parchment barrier” that an overly powerful government or a tyranny of the majority could easily and most likely crumple up.” Federalist thought to keep a more organized government was not to have the Bill of Rights. This meaning that they thought that having a Federalist government would be easier than having to follow the laws that the anti-feds were to have. Having the Bill of Rights would start a democracy.

Side: Federalist position
4 points

The Articles of Confederation created a system of government that turned the states into country-like entities controlled by simple majorities. Debtors (the majority, or farmers) were able to elect representatives that voted in narrow interest for themselves, often to the creditors’ (the minority) detriment. In Federalist 10, James Madison felt that a large republic would solve this issue. He states, “you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority… will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens” (305). By having a large republic, the pool of voters is much bigger, making it less likely for majorities to form. This is ideal because as previously shown in the past, majorities tend to vote what would benefit only them, usually for the short term. With no majorities, minorities cannot be dogpiled with the passing of policies.

Side: Federalist position
4 points

Our governments are too unreliable. The government is practically run by the majority, which gives no room for other voices to speak up. The democratic ways of our government causes us to stray away from justice, and steer towards the needs of those in the majority, leading to private rights being wrongfully violated. This can be supported with the quote- “...and particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements….these must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice, with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administration.”

Side: Federalist position
mmcarey(5) Disputed
3 points

The people are supposed to have a voice in their government; that is exactly why the colonies declared their separation from Great Britain-to have a voice and a say so. If the people vote in representatives that they believe will fight for the betterment of their community, then there is nothing to worry about. And according to Brutus 1 if the nation were to resolve to an excessive republic(having a strong central government) “ the great officers of government [would] abuse its power”. This is seen through the authority the federal government assumed when taking land from its people when they had no way of paying for the taxes imposed on them after the war (shay’s rebellion).

Side: Anti-federalist position
Tha_Genius(6) Disputed
1 point

Democracy is an important part of our country though. Would you rather we return to the tyrannical monarchy of Britain? The people must have a voice in order to keep the government from oppressing them. You say that the majority is violating the rights of the minority, but if we are worried about the violation of rights, shouldn't we be worried about the rights to property that are being violated in the majority? Most of these people can't afford to pay these debts because the national government didn't pay them for their service in the war. Why should we give more power to a national government that has let the people fall into debt?

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

Your claim would be stronger with a reference to the Declaration.

Side: Anti-federalist position
RuffMenace(6) Disputed
1 point

The government is supposed to be run for the people and by the people. We fought against Britain, so that we were not ruled by a tyrannical government that is against the people. If the government was run for the minorities, this would become a tyrannical government. This may lead to the violation of majorities rights. Based on Brutus 1, “They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power.” This talks about how to government will use their power to benefit their own interests, minorities.

Side: Anti-federalist position
4 points

A standing army is beneficial for the growth and protection of the United States of America . Without a standing army, the United States is wide open to invasion with no restraint. States still have militias! What we, the federalist, are adding is protection from outside powers. As stated in the constitutions, the militias are in power to “execute the Laws of the Union”; however, the militias are not in sole power of themselves. Instead, congress will provide organization, armory, and disciplinary actions to the militias. Both militias and a standing army will add layers of protection to the American population. One layer would be the standing army protecting people from foreign enemies. While the militia would help enforce the laws to help domestic issues, protecting us from ourselves.

Side: Federalist position
JamesDD(232) Disputed
4 points

A standing army is beneficial for the growth and protection of the United States of America

In other words, beneficial for imperialists who wish to bully and coerce other nations into compliance.

Without a standing army, the United States is wide open to invasion with no restraint.

Invasion is how the United States became a nation in the first place. How can you criticise the very thing which brought you into existence?

I think the pro-war, pro-military attitudes of people in America are approximately three centuries out of date. You have not continued to grow intellectually as a people and as such are at grave risk of being left behind by the rest of the world.

Hard power is not the only type of power. The Chinese have been proving lately that soft power is often considerably more effective at achieving the goals of the nation state.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

Can you share what soft power is and how the U.S.'s may be diminishing?

Side: Anti-federalist position
blovedmagic(17) Disputed
3 points

You're saying that a standing army is needed for "protection form outside powers." Wouldn't you consider our militias defeated the British troops in the American Revolution protecting outside powers? If our militias are capable of getting the job done themselves, there is no need to add a standing army. You also said that the will "help enforce the laws to help domestic issues." What if for instance, they are told to go enforce a law they don't agree with and refuse. Then you go to the standing armies. Do you want people to fear our government?

Side: Anti-federalist position
WackoWarrior(12) Disputed
2 points

Even without a standing army the United States is not open to an invasion. There are militias that will stop these outside powers. The militias have not failed the United States yet and they have proved that they will only stand up for what is right. A standing army will only listen to what the government is telling them to do. If the government tells them to fight for something that is wrong, they have no choice but to fight because it is their job. The militias are more beneficial to the states than a standing army.

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

A Bill of Rights is wholly unnecessary. Having a Bill of Rights creates confusion because if a right is not listed, is it still granted to the people? It creates unnecessary ambiguity especially since basic rights such as the right to privacy are not listed either. From a Federalist point of view, “Regular elections, three branches that checked one another’s power, the preservation of local governments, trial by jury, and habeas corpus protect liberty more effectively than a limited list of rights” (69). The Federalists’ proposed government structure ensures that the people have rights that aren’t just limited to what is listed on a piece of paper. In addition, because the Congress has only the powers listed in the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, Congress cannot take away a person’s individual rights because it does not have the power to limit it.

Side: Federalist position
blovedmagic(17) Disputed
2 points

You say "Congress has only the powers listed in the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8." This may be true, but there are ways to get powers outside of those listed. For instance, what if the Congress says something is necessary and proper but it violates our unlisted rights? Because of the Necessary and Proper Clause they are aloud to do this. However, if we had these rights listed in The Bill of Rights they couldn't even if it was "necessary and proper."

Side: Anti-federalist position
mmcarey(5) Disputed
1 point

A bill of rights is necessary. It is a point of reference. Unless you list what is or isn't a right for a large group of people the interpretation of what a natural right or what is an inalienable right will differ because it is all relative depending on who the person is. People will assume power if none is given. Unless told what you can or can not do You have nobody telling you otherwise. The point of reference is necessary. According to Brutus 1, people have confidence in their leader when they can be “responsible to them for their conduct”. This responsibility can not be placed onto someone of representation/power/authority without them knowing the basis of what is right and what is wrong and what rights they and the people they rule have.

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

Federalist wanted a standing army, Federalist wanted this because it would better help strengthen the power of the government and protect the people from foreign invasion from other big powers at the time like Britain. Standing armies are better trained and more thoroughly regulated because they are government institutions, militias are not very well regulated and ruled for example Chapter 23 says, “ The militias called on to put down Shays Rebellion instead joined the violent protesters.” The militias disobeyed their direct orders to stop the rebellion and instead joined the other side of farmers.

Side: Federalist position
Thames(131) Disputed
2 points

You're kind of dogging militias, but the Constitution kept them around and minimized the role of a standing army. Can you reassure me that militias aren't going away by pointing to the Constitution?

Side: Anti-federalist position
Petty_Wizard(10) Disputed
2 points

The militias joining Shay's rebellion are the perfect example of why we should have militias. Militias are able to empathize with the people and do what they think is right. A standing army on the other hand would be willing to kill its own citizens, even innocent ones. It states in Brutus I, "But they have always proved the destruction of liberty, and are abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic." A standing army is able to act upon the will of only one executive while a militia depends on the will of the people. As it states in Brutus I, "It must depend upon the support of its citizens."

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

A large republic is ideal. A large republic is better than a small republic because it is easier to avoid having majorities that would use the power they have to their own benefit. The larger the population is, the larger the republic should be. The larger the republic is, the less people will agree upon a narrow subject. If you have a family sized bag of Skittles and want a handful of them, the more colors you would have than if you were to reach into a box of Lemonheads. In the skittle you have more different colors, but in the box of Lemonheads, they are all the same. This relates to having a large republic with people representing from all over the place which represents the Skittles. In a small republic, you have people with similar interests, representing the Lemonheads.

Side: Federalist position
Thames(131) Disputed
2 points

Nice analogy! You are ignoring the elites problem, though. You'll need such large legislative districts the closer to the land common folk are, the less they'll be heard in the federal capital. Once the government is centralized, you're telling me that the representatives of all the people (327 million today) will be able to fit under one roof and make decisions that are best for everyone. Nay. They do what's in the best interests of those who can afford into the club.

Side: Anti-federalist position
wacko_knight(9) Disputed
1 point

It would be impossible for large republics to elect representatives that know and can accurately express how the people feel. But in a smaller republic it would be easier for the representatives to express the feelings of the people due to there being a smaller amount of people for you to represent. And that is the point of a representative, correct? someone who will express how you feel. Brutus 1 states, "it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people".

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

The Bill of Rights that the Anti-federalists demanded so much is completely unnecessary and extra. For example, as Mr.Thames stated in his book, “ Regular elections, three branch that checked one another’s power, the preservation of local governments, trial by jury, habeas corpus protect liberty more effectively than a limited list of rights“(69). The habeas corpus says that a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order the custodian of the person, usually a prison official, to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether the detention is lawful. Also, the trial by jury says that all American citizens should have the right to trial by a jury. The checks and balances says that each of the three branches of government can limit the powers of the others. This shows that there are many ways that the constitution protects the people’s rights and the bill of rights are not needed to protect them. In addition, if the bill of rights states all the rights people have then what if something isn’t listed on there? For instance, if the Bill of Rights didn’t say that people have the rights to privacy then does that mean people can just come to your room and stalk on you legally.

Side: Federalist position
1 point

The United States needs a new taxing power. In state governments there are too many majority factions that will only vote on laws that benefit them like debt forgiveness laws. An example of this would be “paying in carrots.” Also if the federal government had the power to tax then they would be able to pay the country’s debts and provide national defense.The majority factions were mostly made up of debtors who worked as farmers and this is also supports the fact that we have a “too little democracy.” If the elections are extended then all people would benefit from elections instead of majority factions.

Side: Federalist position
1 point

There should be a strong, central standing army. Reason being is because state militias are too small and if the United States were to go into war with another country it would need a well trained soldier and it would need to protect those who are in the country. State militias would be unable to provide this type of protection. If George Washington, the founding father of our country was “wearied to death” about the militias then the citizens should have definitely been. The troops never really had officers and were not trained properly so they couldn’t protect the states if they tried to.

Side: Federalist position
WackoCommand(10) Disputed
2 points

The claim that militias could not have protected the states if they tried to is just incorrect. State militias were able to successfully fend off the biggest and most powerful army of the time which was owned by Britain. Regardless of if they were trained properly or not they were able to fight them off and keep the United States safe. They simply came together and fought against a common enemy which goes to show that a standing army is unnecessary.

Side: Anti-federalist position
wacko_knight(9) Disputed
1 point

You stated that state militias are too small to protect the United States, but we won the revolutionary war with state militias. Our militias held off the entire British army. So I see no reason as why we should trade our state militias for a standing army.

Side: Anti-federalist position

Factions are the big issue. It is easy for factions to rely on their own bias, or to follow the leader in terms of ideas and ways things are run. This gives factions the chance to shift the agenda to benefit only their interests, instead of the interests of everyone. This can be supported with the quote- “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

Side: Federalist position
4 points

A confederation allows for citizens to live with more freedom. The state governments are the embodiment of the people. When an upper line of authority invokes itself onto the people, the people often rebell, causing chaos because the people have no say. Example - Shay’s rebellion: the federal government started taking away farmers land that couldn’t afford the poll taxes without having recognition of the citizens inalienable right to pursue their happiness (ownership of their own property). A confederation, on the other hand, does not have a federal government hovering over the state government telling the people no or trying to control them. The people get the final say and can have a voice when it comes to their lives.

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

A standing army is not necessary. The saying goes “if it’s not broke don’t fix it.” Have our militias failed us yet? In 1775, local militias independently defeated British troops in the American Revolution. By having militias, we are relying on our own citizens, keeping our republics small. In Shay’s rebellion for example, the militia refused to fight the farmers because they knew it wasn’t right. Militias stick up for what’s right because they are ordinary citizens.

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

Militias stick up for what’s right because they are ordinary citizens.

Absolutely, whereas the traditional military is the private army of the state.

Side: Anti-federalist position
Mercenary(8) Disputed
3 points

Have our militias failed us yet?

The Continental Army that George Washington led was supplemented, and remained under the control of the individual states, by state militias. During the Revolutionary War, George Washington and his soldiers consistently had a shortage of supplies and were frequently on the brink of starvation. With a standing army, not only would the soldiers be more coordinated, but also the supply networks would be more stable and secure. State militias will not go away, either! They are simply just too unreliable to depend on completely, which is why a standing army would benefit the country.

Side: Federalist position
Foolsamurai(15) Disputed
2 points

A standing army was very necessary at this time, with out a standing army there is no possible way the states would stand a chance against another major power like Britain. Standing armies are better trained and regulated. Although the farmers may have been ordinary citizens, they were destroying government properties and institutions and also using the power they gained from being the majority to their own benefit. They were hurting the economy by their debt forgiveness law. The militias should have tried to control the farmers, but instead, they deliberately disobeyed their orders and joined sides with the farmers. This is an example of how the militias were not well regulated because they could easily switch their sides in another situation.

Side: Federalist position
WackoWarrior(12) Disputed
1 point

With out a standing army there is no possible way the states would stand a chance against another major power like Britain.

If you are claiming that the states would stand no chance against a major power such as Britain how would you explain the militias defeating Britain during the American Revolution? The militias have shown us that they can stand up to even the strongest of powers and they have not failed us yet. There is no evident reason to get rid of the militias. They have proven their strength against major powers across the world.

Side: Anti-federalist position
Foolsamurai(15) Clarified
1 point

Militias would not completely go away, but a standing army would benefit the states by protecting against a large scale invasion. Militias could deal with domestic and smaller issues.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

Standing armies allow for the government to turn on its citizens. A standing army is run and funded by the federal government. This entails that the government has more of an appeal to those who are within standing army because they “have power to ...raise and support armies” (article 1, section 8). And, due to the necessary and proper clause, if the government feels as though their people are out of line, even if they are using their freedoms expressed within the declaration, congress has the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” (necessary and proper clause). If the federal government has the power to both pay its shoulders and make the decisions on when to attack then they have the ability to go after its own citizens.

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

The Anti-Federalists wanted a militia instead of a standing army since they are apart of the population. Madison said that if a standing army coming into the state, there will be a militia waiting for them at the border of the state. “they have always been complained of as oppressive and unconstitutional, and are seldom employed in executing of the laws.”

Side: Anti-federalist position
Quiet_Hunter(10) Disputed
1 point

Will militias “waiting” on standing armies at the border even be beneficial? Or will it just create more chaos? Standing armies are likely to be more reliable than just regular militias as they have more proper training- rather than a bunch of rag-tag citizens banding together against a cause most of them may be uneducated on.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

The Necessary and Proper Clause is very vague and allows the government to encroach on the rights of the people. It states in section 8 of article 1, “...which shall be necessary and proper...” as well as “...the supreme law of the land…”. The Bill of Rights would guarantee the people their rights and “plug the hole” in the clauses. The Bill of Rights would protect the people by limiting the government. For example the 6th Amendment ensures a fair trial, which in turn would keep people who speak out against the government safe. Another example is the 2nd Amendment or the right to bear arms which would protect the state’s militias and therefore the state’s sovereignty as well.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

The necessary and proper clause at the end of Article 1, Section 8 gives the central government too much power. As stated in Brutus I, "The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation. It is as much one complete government as that of New-York or Massachusetts, has as absolute and perfect powers to make and execute all laws, to appoint officers, institute courts, declare offences, and annex penalties..." The clause is too vague, and it opens up the opportunity for the central government to shut out the state governments. If the state governments are shut out, what place will the people have in our government? What if the central government passed legislation that rendered state legislature useless under the claim that it was necessary for the betterment of the country?

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

The necessary and proper clause states, "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,” which allows the government to make any laws they feel are necessary. The Bill of Rights is necessary to safeguard the individual rights of a person. The Bill of Rights established many of the individual freedoms granted to the people. Without the Bill of Rights, the necessary and proper clause would allow the government to take the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Religion (Amendment 1) away from the people if they felt it was necessary.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

We need a Bill of Rights. The Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the power “to make laws that should be necessary and proper.” This is too broad and gives the government the ability to invade the rights of the citizens. It is inevitable that without The Bill of Rights, our liberties will be taken away. The Bill of Rights is crucial in protecting the promised liberties of the people. The 2nd amendment for example, states that the government cannot force people to allow soldiers to live in their homes. Another example is the 8th amendment protecting citizens from excessive fines and punishments.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

The supremacy clause is a threat to the power of state legislatures. The fact that federal law overrides state law makes state legislatures seem powerless. The author of Brutus I had similar thoughts. “It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void…” (Brutus I). In the case of Shays and his group of rebels, they followed exactly what was said in the Declaration. They felt that their rights to property were violated, so they fought back. If the federal government would have passed legislature to grant the banks power to take that land AND had a standing army to enforce those laws, the states would have been powerless to fight back, and the federal government would kill anyone who tried to stand up for their rights.

Side: Anti-federalist position
xcessiveknig(13) Disputed
1 point

The Supremacy Clause does not grant power to any federal government, such as Congress. It deals with resolving a conflict between the federal and state governments once federal power has been validly exercised. As stated in the constitution, “the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” By stating this, it shows that the congress was trying to create a balance between state government and national. By allowing state representatives into meetings, it shows that the opinion of the state did matter.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

Higher taxes imposed by the national government minimizes the amount of taxing the state can impose which makes it harder for the state to maintain a militia, support infrastructure, and keep the state’s sovereignty. This infringes upon Article II of the Articles of Confederation which states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated…”. The national government would prevent the states from having tariffs. It says in Brutus I, “No state can emit paper money -- lay any duties, or imposts, on imports, or exports, but by consent of the Congress…”. This directly contravenes the Articles of Confederation because the state’s sovereignty would “dwindle away, and, as observed, their powers absorbed in that of the general government.”

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

The Necessary and Proper clause is very vague and unlawful because governments could use this clause to pass any law if they deemed it necessary/beneficial to the Nation. They would be also be allowed to take property according to the Necessary and Proper clause. The Fifth Amendment talks about how the government can not take away life, liberty, or property from citizens without due process of law. Private Property can not be taken for public use, without just composition.“A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution, all powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, is a power very comprehensive and definite, and may, for ought I know, be exercised in a such manner as entirely to abolish the state legislatures.” (Brutus I) This talks about how the Necessary and Proper clause could lead to the central government abolishing state governments.

Side: Anti-federalist position
Mercenary(8) Disputed
2 points

The Necessary and Proper clause is very vague and unlawful because governments could use this clause to pass any law if they deemed it necessary/beneficial to the Nation.

All laws start in either the Senate or House of Representatives. Senators are elected by state legislatures, and representatives in the house are elected by popular vote. The representatives who the people and state legislatures voted for are making these bills, and both houses have to agree with its contents before it is evaluated by the president. Thus, they would not be able to propose such bills without backlash from the state and its government!

This talks about how the Necessary and Proper clause could lead to the central government abolishing state governments.

The government does not have the power to do that, and because senators and house members are representatives of each state, it would be illogical for them to pass a law that went against their state's best interest.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

The Necessary and Proper Clause was very ill-defined and gave too much freedom to the Federal Government because it gave them the power to do anything they wish and claim that it was necessary for the success or benefit of the nation. As stated in Brutus 1, “but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defense.” This could lead to the federal government taking over and abolishing the state government as a whole or even taxing very large amounts of money by just saying that it is necessary.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

A standing army will not only be unnecessary to protect the United States but also could be detrimental to the success of the country.With a standing army the ruler could decide to take over and become a tyrant with the help of his standing army. In Brutus 1 it says, “It might be here shown, that the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their control over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty.” This claims that the ability of the federal government to make their own army whenever they want goes against the freedoms the citizens have. Also, he states that if they are not allowed to assemble militias that it goes against the free will given to them and their liberty as a whole. If the federal government left us with no militias and themselves with a standing army we would have no way to defend ourselves if the started a tyranny.

Side: Anti-federalist position
Foolsamurai(15) Disputed
2 points

Although there is a chance the army could be come tyrannical, in article 1 section 8 of the Constitution, it says, " To raise and support armies, but no Appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." Under the circumstance of the army becoming tyrannical, every 2 years the people of the states get to vote on new representatives. These new representatives could then defund the army using POP.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

Great point! Where is the main source of power of the purse (POP) in the Constitution?

Side: Federalist position
2 points

Standing Armies are a risk to our government because they could become tyrannical and go against the will of the people. Well-regulated militias would be for the people because it is a proper, natural, and safe defence of the states. The second amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. “A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of the citizens, it must be so constructed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the people” (Brutus I). Militias are needed in a free republic to execute its laws.

Side: Anti-federalist position
Foolsamurai(15) Disputed
2 points

.the government had Power of the purse and they could not appropriate money to the funding of the army for more than 2 years. In the instance of the army becoming tyrannical, the people could elect new representatives to kill/defund the army.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

No one has brought up the Second Amendment? Nevermind, BC just said they did somewhere. But this claim would be strengthened by a reference to it.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

The federal government should not have the power to tax citizens or the states. If they were given the ability to do so they would tax unfairly and to the point where it is harmful to people. A claim in Brutus 1 says, “this power therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please.” This claim is saying that the federal government, if given the power to tax, could tax any amount they want without any reasonable explanation. This would not only hurt the people or citizens of the United states but could ultimately leave them with no money or power to do anything.

Side: Anti-federalist position
xcessiveknig(13) Disputed
3 points

The federal government should have power to tax the people and states. The taxation of people is important to help pay off national debt. As stated in Article 1 section nine of the Constitution, “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” By having a larger population, the federal government will change the taxes placed on its people based off of what the census needs not personal connection and feelings, or leisure.

Side: Federalist position
Mercenary(8) Disputed
1 point

This would not only hurt the people or citizens of the United states but could ultimately leave them with no money or power to do anything.

Without taxing power, the federal government was unable to pay soldiers after the Revolutionary War. This left many veterans returning to their farms in debt. In addition, after the war, the state government "raised land taxes on common folk by fivefold... to pay off war debt" (52). The state government, in this instance, directly harmed a large part of its population by taxing farmers unfairly. After Shay's Rebellion, debt forgiveness laws were passed, which encroached on bankers' rights to property and liberty. Now, the minority was being targeted by laws that the state legislature passed. Had the federal government originally had the power to tax, such an economic downturn could have been prevented.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

The new taxing power is going to be bad for the states because the central government will be able to place/collect unfair taxes on whatever they please. This will lead to direct taxation in the states. “The only mean therefore left, for any state to support its government and discharge its debts, is by direct taxation; and the United States have also power to lay and collect taxes, in any way they please” (Brutus I). The state governments powers will be absorbed by the general government if they are allowed to tax whenever and whatever they want.

Side: Anti-federalist position
blovedmagic(17) Disputed
1 point

They can "place/collect unfair taxes on whatever they please"? Where did you read this? There are limitations as to what they can tax. Clause 4 states: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." The government definitely doesn’t have free range. They also need to gain the trust of the citizens, so unnecessary taxes wouldn't be practical. These new taxing powers are crucial to government funding because states used to have a choice about giving the government money. A government needs money in order to function.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

A standing army is not necessary to protect the United States. A standing army would get rid of the integrity that the militias have. The militias have proved many times that they will not stand up and fight for things they know are wrong including Shay’s Rebellion. A standing army would be an aristocratic army where people who had a very high societal status would be calling the shots, while in militias, which is led by normal citizens, will look out for the best interest of the people.

Side: Anti-federalist position
xcessiveknig(13) Disputed
3 points

A standing army is necessary! Without the standing army there will be a mess of militias. As the country grows, the lack of organization will lead to big militias with many demagogues trying to take over. Eventually without an organized army, the militias will lead themselves into self destruction. The Constitution will help create a balance in this issue. The Constitution will allow for both a controlled and organized militia system and standing army. With this, both the federalist and anti federalist will be appeased. There will be control of the states and nation with both a militia system and standing army, as well as maintain individual liberty.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

The new taxation powers of the government will take the power from the states. These powers allow the federal government to enforce any tax it desires. This includes taxes that could be detrimental to the state governments. This also takes away the state’s ability to collect tariffs where a majority of the state funding comes from. Brutus 1 discusses that the states will be forced to put a direct taxation on its people to pay off debts owed to the federal government. This will lead to more unnecessary taxes being placed on the people. Overall, this takes a great deal of power from the states as the federal government will overshadow them.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

“No state can emit paper money lay any duties, or imposts, on imports or exports, but by the consent of the Congress.” Once again you’re giving our powers to the Congress and this time states’ taxing power! Tariffs are an important source of money for our state governments. The only other tax left to states is property. So instead of taxing our citizen’s french perfume, you’re want me to tax their tomato patches?

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

A strong central government will not be able to represent the average citizen, being that it would be too far removed. The United States of America is too large for the central government to respond to the needs and worries of citizens who live far away in rural areas. The book states that “They (farmers and artisans), could not afford to travel to the capital city to debate and vote on laws.” The book also states that “Additionally, they did not think it possible, nor they trust, that educated, wealthy men from established families could represent the interests of the bulk of the population. What did a Boston banker know of the needs of a Western Massachusetts blacksmith.” At this time, this was very important because a large majority of citizens lived outside of the city in rural areas.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

Standing armies are too great a threat to the freedom of the people. Militias are clearly a far better option for national defense. Standing armies give the central government too much control over the obedience of citizens. When the government puts a law into place, they will use the standing army to enforce that law and punish offenders. Brutus I stated that, “where a standing army is at hand to punish offenders, every man is actuated by the latter principle, and therefore, when the magistrate calls, will obey…” Another problem with standing armies is that they are trained to obey orders no matter what. If a Delaware native is told to fire upon a group of New Yorkers, he would comply without hesitation, but if he were told to fire upon his friends and family, he would put up resistance. The later situation is found in militias. The soldiers in a militia are fellow citizens, so they wouldn’t kill their friends and family just because the government tells them to.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

Anti-federalist feel as if a standing army is not needed nor do they have a place in our states. Because this standing army could be used to intimidate our independent states into something that we do not agree with. Brutus 1 states, “ standing armies are kept up to execute the commands of the prince or the magistrate, and are employed for this purpose when occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty”.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

as an anti-federalist, I feel as if the necessary and proper clause is way too powerful. It is vague and states, “a power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution, all powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the united states...entirely to abolish the state legislatures”.(Brutus 1) This shows how this clause could allow congress to do anything that they see fit even abolish state courts if they sought it necessary.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

as an anti-federalist, I feel as if the supremacy clause is too powerful. It grants the central government’s courts more power than state courts. It also allows congress to not only put courts in Washington, but also anywhere they deem “necessary and proper”. This would render the state courts useless. Brutus 1 states, “ these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts.”

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

The Anti-Federalists wanted their laws to stay in the state to where the state had their own laws and did not have to follow the national government’s laws. “ The supremacy clause has the potentiality to transform America from a system of confederated states into a complete consolidated government.” The Tenth Amendment says, “That any power that is not given to the federal government is given to the people or the states.”

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

We want the bill of rights because it will prevent the central government from becoming too powerful. If we do not it would be as if we were still under the control of England. The Bill of Rights were wanted so badly by the anti federalist because it was necessary to safeguard individual rights and liberty. In the Great Compromise it states that, “Additionally, states had their own bills of rights that protected individual liberties like freedom of speech and religion.”

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

We want small governments because it will allow us to have more freedom and be more independent.The Articles of Confederation will give states the rights and power that they deserve. Without small governments it is no different than if we were to be under the rule of England again. “No state legislature, or any power in the state governments, have any more to do in carrying this into effect, than the authority of one state has to do with that of another.”

Side: Anti-federalist position