CreateDebate


Debate Info

313
329
Federalist position--YES Anti-federalist position--NO
Debate Score:642
Arguments:138
Total Votes:801
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Federalist position--YES (61)
 
 Anti-federalist position--NO (68)

Debate Creator

Thames(175) pic



Should the Constitution be ratified (fourth block)

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

Federalist position--YES

Side Score: 313
VS.

Anti-federalist position--NO

Side Score: 329
10 points

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

Side: Federalist position--YES
8 points

Show us how the Constitution filters good leaders from the rest!

Side: Federalist position--YES
redhot(26) Disputed
5 points

Show us how the Constitution filters good leaders from the rest!

Ahahahaha! Is that literally supposed to be a joke?

And Trump's connections to Epstein's sex trafficking may go beyond merely superficial. In 2016, “Jane Doe” filed a lawsuit against Trump alleging a “savage sexual attack” in 1994, when she was 13 years old, in which he tied her to a bed at Epstein’s house, raped her, and struck her in the face. The account was corroborated by a witness who claimed to have seen the child perform sexual acts on both Trump and Epstein.

Just as he has a patten of sexual predation, Trump also seems to have a pattern of threatening victims who come forward. Jane Doe alleged in the lawsuit that Trump told her she shouldn’t ever say anything if she didn’t want to “disappear like Maria,” a 12-year-old girl who had also been abused along with her. Jane Doe dropped the lawsuit in November 2016, days before Trump’s election, after her attorney, Lisa Bloom, cited “numerous threats” against her client.

https://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein

Your leaders are decided by one thing: money. Your entire system is built around the worship of money and that is why you now have a serial rapist as president.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
CrazySamurai(3) Disputed
7 points

One of the main issues regarding the Constitution is centered around the "enlightened" leaders taking power. As seen in recent years, especially with the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1992, those in power that serve the same agenda will often agree with one another regardless of how heinous or unconstitutional the act is. Should we be faced with a unilateral government, partisan bias will change the definition of "enlightened leaders" into something that supports the agenda of a single group, creating a tyrannical government that does not do its part in defending the minority nor the majority. Whoever controls the power shall control the people.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
7 points

I agree a government that is held together by universal laws is going to have an equal standard per state. It allows for the country to grow as a whole instead of individual states growing and leaving others behind. This would lead to a very corrupt and divided country.

Side: Federalist position--YES
CrazySamurai(3) Disputed
5 points

A centralized government is often the most corruptible and affects the most within the country. Majorities and minorities will always exist, however, the freedom of having separate governments will allow those to escape the corruption of their localized governments. It's much harder to do so within a corrupt federal government.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
WackoAssassi(15) Disputed
5 points

As this country grows, more and more people will be under represented by these "enlightened rulers". As Brutus one states, One representative cannot know, and take into account for 750,000 people. This will lead to problems for the people of this country not having an equal opportunity for their voice to be heard.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
10 points

If the Constitution is ratified, the national government will have the power to create a standing army. This would greatly support the nation rather than the state militias of the anti-federalist state governments. If each state has their own militia, it would be very easy for states to get into disputes with one another and choose sides. This would create many wars within the nation causing it to crumble. One national army would stand for the country as a whole and could spring to action much faster with government support to protect the citizens.

Side: Federalist position--YES
MadSamurai(14) Disputed
6 points

Having a standing army is not inherently a bad idea, but as said in Brutus I, we have just gotten out of a war with England, and our people deserve time to rest. Having a standing army would require constant funds as well to maintain, and this would result in the government taking taxes on their citizens. The government has made it clear that they plan to take taxes in a non-direct approach, leaving the states who also need funding to only be able to tax via direct taxing, which will surely cause much uproar with the citizens in each state. If war is needed, the militias are always able to rise back up, so a standing army would only cause multiple problems with maintaining the happiness of the American people.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
5 points

An army would only provide power to the federal government. As I've stated in many of my previous arguments, corruption is easily facilitated within the form of government that federalists desire. Should a standing army be created, then that will only provide another means to the oppression of the people.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
quietkillah(9) Disputed
5 points

Taxing is inevitable regardless of where it comes from. As a growing new country, we need to be supplied with money. That will either come from the states taxing their citizens to supply a local militia or from the federal government taxing everyone for a military. The benefit of a military is the guarantee that they are fighting for the betterment of the entire country. But when a state is taxing for a local militia, there is no guarantee that they are not funding to support a civil war and tear down all of the success that the states have so long fought for. A standing military is purely American and supports the safety of all civilians instead of singular groups.

Side: Federalist position--YES
ShriekinNinj(3) Disputed
5 points

The national government's power to command a standing army in peacetime and to exert control over state militias is dangerous as it can lead to a unpredictable government. Standing armies can lead to moral corruption that can hurt independence and liberty.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
phantomkilla(1) Disputed
4 points

Having a standing army will allow for the tyrannical government to bully the general public. The standing army can easily be used against us, just as Britain used theirs. A standing army can be used in the context of fear tactics. We fought once against a tyrannical government, and we will do it again.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
9 points

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

Side: Federalist position--YES
8 points

Point to the language in the Articles that suggests that states are more like allies than they are parts of one unified government.

Side: Federalist position--YES
Desperados(17) Disputed
7 points

Back when the America's states all had different currencies and no big central government they co existed rather then co operated.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
CrazySamurai(3) Disputed
5 points

A "universal law" that was found to be an over-assertion of power was the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1992. Had it never been found unconstitutional by a desperate court-appointed lawyer given a hopeless case, then it would have stayed in power and been left unchecked for years. Who's to say that there aren't laws like that still in place? The "checks-and-balances" provided by the Constitution have NOT worked in the past. The federal government's Constitution seems to be only a parchment barrier; what's stopping Congress, the Supreme Court, or even the President from infringing upon the rules set before them?

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
9 points

Our country needs a strong central government. The power will be divided so that too much power can be gained. For example, the system of checks and balances. Each department will have its own will and each member will not be bothered by members of other departments. Everyone has to keep each other in line to keep the government in balance.

Side: Federalist position--YES
Thames(175) Disputed
6 points

But you didn't show why the country needs a central government. What did Hamilton argue? Madison? (use the Google)

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
drunkenninja(11) Disputed
8 points

Hamilton wanted a national government that had STRONG political authority. He wanted to eliminate state governments. He believed that a strong government should be one in which there were no states.

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

The constitution's checks on the branches of federal government are rendered useless when clauses such as the Supremacy clause and the Necessary and Proper clause are included in the document. They are so vague that the different branches of the government could justify almost anything through those clauses and still technically be within their powers. There are too many ways that the checks and balances could be ignored that it will be ineffective. It is human nature for those in power to want to use any means necessary to avoid following rules that are meant to slow them down.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
8 points

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

Side: Federalist position--YES
7 points

Would Bernie Sander's proposal to cancel student debt make him an Anti-Federalist?

Side: Federalist position--YES
Phantom-Wing(7) Disputed
7 points

I believe so; he is trying to erase major debts that need to be payed, the same way the anti-federalist farmers and debtors tried to do within the local governments.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
8 points

Strong centralized government would help regulate all people, those people of the wealthier status would not be able to take advantage of others and abuse their power. "No man is allowed to be a judge of his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgement, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." Those in charge will always make rules in their favor, if they have the chance, people who are powerful in general, want more power. Government should depend on structure not people, but should be based on popular sovereignty.

Side: Federalist position--YES
XpertBeggar(7) Disputed
5 points

STrong centralized government does not help regulate all people, they regulate people in their interest. In fact, those people of wealth are the one in power, they create and enforce law out of their faction. “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man”(p301). The creator of the constitution knows that faction cannot be avoided so they create a divided government but this also creates the problem of not getting anything done known as gridlock.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
redhot(26) Disputed
7 points

STrong centralized government does not help regulate all people, they regulate people in their interest.

Your big problem here is in thinking that corporate interests do not also centralise themselves and try to regulate people. The entire reason government is necessary is to stop that from happening. A government needs to exist in a capitalist society in order to regulate and oversee the private sector. If you remove regulation from the private sector then we get a result like 2008, when the global economy tanked and a million American families lost their homes.

Side: Federalist position--YES
8 points

With a big federal government and small state governments it is easier to gather money for things such as a strong standing military, health care, social security, government assistance programs, and plenty more. The federal government has this great source of money because it can tax all the states so it has a bigger money pool. If the states had more control then the federal government then the states would keep the money within their state. This would lead to states with really nice areas then areas that are not kept up at all. States would not help others in need because they would be to busy looking out for themselves. With a powerful federal government this can be prevented and money can be well regulated and equally distributed based on what the representatives vote on. According to Federalist 44 if states were left to raise money on their own there would be to much mischief and no one to regulate it. It would be a very corrupt system. Also with a federal government that is strong it would issue out the same currency for all the states. If we had big state governments then the currencies would be different like they were. This would lead to different values per dollar, different inflation per state,and it would be harder to collect money or spend money in different states. With a unified central government it allows the country to grow stronger easier.

Side: Federalist position--YES
WackoAssassi(15) Disputed
5 points

The federal government having all of the money, leaves no money for the states, This government is built on democracy, and taking money from the states is a direct hit on democracy. Did we not want this government to be for the people? With less money in the states it leaves less money for the people. We would not have to put all of those programs in place if the money regulation stays on a smaller scale.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
1 point

wow this guy or girl really knows what he is talking about and has very good grammar. I also agree that the states would be more corrupt then a large federal government!!!!!!!

Side: Federalist position--YES
7 points

Central government is needed to limit the control of majority factions in the states.

Federalists 10 states that factions are inevitable to be formed in a diverse group of people. In a smaller group of people, such as state governments, it is easier to form majority groups, therefore more likely for a majority group to take over that part of the government. When more power is put in the federal government with counteracting states, there are less majority factions and more groups that challenge the opposing opinion, government is more democratic, as it was made to be. A centralized government with smaller power in the states creates a more democratic environment.

Side: Federalist position--YES
MadSamurai(14) Disputed
9 points

I agree that a centralized government is not inherently a bad idea, but this type of centralized government has never been done at this scale. There are way too many people in this nation to try and unite them all, so allowing states to maintain the most power would allow them to govern their own people.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
quietkillah(9) Disputed
5 points

The states are still governing their own people. The federal government checking the rights of the states, but essentially giving them more power by leaving them the ability to handle any reguards that are not enumerated or recognized by the state government.

Side: Federalist position--YES
Thames(175) Disputed
6 points

But the Constitution creates undemocratic institutions. Name two and argue why that's ok that parts of the government are not democratic.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
quietkillah(9) Disputed
6 points

The excutive and supreme court justices are two institutions that are not created democratically. The executive is voted through the electoral collage and supreme court appointed by the executive himself. Through this method, there is a limited area where the people are excluded from using their voice, but creates enough decisiveness so that gridlock is not created among the state governments.

Side: Federalist position--YES
7 points

The Necessary and Proper Clause is vital to the success of congress getting actions passed through and followed. For example, in Mculloch v Maryland, the states argued that they had authority to tax the federal government for creating a bank on state property in Maryland, since creating a federal bank on state property is not an enumerated power. The Necessary and Proper clause overcame the state's power by allowing the bank to be enforced because it was furthering the ability of the commerce clause, which is an enumerated power of congress. Overall, Necessary and Proper gives authority to the federal government to follow through with enumerated powers with garuntee that the power will be respected.

Side: Federalist position--YES
5 points

This is solid. Good work, quietkillah. You use the terminology of the study--"enumerated" "commerce clause". Try to use the idea of implied powers.....

Side: Federalist position--YES
phantomkilla(1) Disputed
3 points

The necessary and proper clause is too vague and takes the power away from the states. The federal government uses this clause to deem whatever they want as "necessary and proper," even if it is a state issue. The commerce clause is also a form of manipulation from the federal government as they use this to their advantage even if they are reaching. In the U.S. v. Lopez case in 1992, the federal government tried to take a state's case involving a teenager with a gun on a high school campus. When the federal gov't could not win the case using a Gun Free School Zones Act because it was not an enumerated power, the federal gov't tried to use the commerce clause to argue that gun violence will hurt the economy. The state of Texas argued that the Commerce clause was reaching and that this was their case to handle. This case was a precedent for the first time that a state would dispute the Commerce clause and find it to be reaching. In conclusion, the federal government uses vague clauses found in the Constitution to try to take states' power.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
7 points

Another reason to support the Federalist argument is that with a strong federal government it protects our rights much better. To become a leader in the federal government there is more filters then the state. Also it is proven that people that work in the federal government are more educated and better qualified.

Side: Federalist position--YES
drunkenninja(11) Clarified
6 points

I agree, when people in the government are more educated and qualified it is better for our country. It is harder for things to get passed them. For example, LBJ was very educated on the rules of the senate and, so he greatly succeeded in that field.

Side: Federalist position--YES
WackoAssassi(15) Disputed
3 points

Not everyone can have access to education... does this make them any less of a person? Elites in a strong government will never be able to experience what it's like to be poor farmer folk and cannot understand what it's like to be deemed lesser. They are given a head start in the race of life while others are left behind. Small governments combat this, representatives in these small governments are able to know everyone and accommodate for people's needs, rich AND poor. This gives equal opportunities for everyone in the state.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
6 points

In ratifying the constitution, the people could become more unified under one large central government. Differences are present throughout the people, but they could see similarities in that all people are created equal under the same rules, and structure of government. Improvements will need to be made, but those improvements could be made together. One person wont be able to see the changes that they want to be made, all people will have a say. Elites will be able to lead, elites are the ones who should be in power regardless, the best man, with the absence of wealth, should be able to represent.

Side: Federalist position--YES
5 points

Federalists Rule! Anti-Federalists Drool! The Constitution should be ratified create a strong standing nation. As Federalist 10 says, create a Confederation of Republics.

Side: Federalist position--YES
phantomkilla(1) Disputed
4 points

When you say Anti-fedralists drool, what do you mean? Are you trying to insult us? As Brutus 1 argues, us Antifeds do not wish to be ruled by a republic that will take our own power. The federalists just seem to want to live in a nation where they are controlled by a government of elites that have their own money-making agenda.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
Phantom-Wing(7) Disputed
4 points

I am not in any way trying to push down my fellow countrymen. We simply have different opinions and I am just trying to support my fellow Federalists. With the Constitution, the people will be able to vote for their representatives. These representatives will not take the power from the people. As a matter of fact, the people will give the government its power by voting for who they want to run the country. The politicians will do things that are popular among citizens in order to get reelected.

Side: Federalist position--YES
3 points

It would be better for the nation, to have a one massive power than several mediocre powers. This would help the nation in becoming a global force, rather than a local force. At any point in time the country could be attacked by oppressors, ratifying the constitution would provide the power for the country to have the resources and structure to be able to collectively establish a force to compete with other radicals like Britain. etc.

Side: Federalist position--YES
2 points

Reported.

You are using this debate to spawn puppet accounts Bronto. You do not even have sufficient intelligence to vary the usernames enough for other people not to spot what you are doing.

Please accept the fact that you were banned from CD for spreading fascist propaganda, telling lies, bullying, personal abuse and generally acting like a 13 year old Nazi (which essentially is what you are).

Frankly, you are the most vile human being I have ever come across in 20 years of using the internet. Every solitary aspect of your character is disgusting.

Side: Federalist position--YES
Thames(175) Disputed
8 points

Not a bot. Go to wu tang clan name generator. this is a high school class conducting an anonymous debate. You are welcome as long as you can stay on topic and be chill.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
1 point

Creating a federal government gives citizens a greater opportunity to impact the entire nation rather than just the states.

Side: Federalist position--YES
5 points

If we were to ratify the Constitution, the central government would be way too strong and abuse its powers the same way the King did to the colonies. We can not allow for the people to lose the power they have to a corrupt government.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
Phantom-Wing(7) Disputed
5 points

Federalist 51 would stop the government from having too much power. The papers say the central government would be separated into 3 different branches that would balance one another's powers. Each branch would have their own set of of enumerated and implied powers from the Constitution. This would create a system of checks and balances that would limit the power of each branch.

Side: Federalist position--YES
Desperados(17) Disputed
4 points

In no way is this true. There are multiple checks and balances to prevent this and also a term limit so the people can have a say on who is running there country. Also the states still have power such as the 10th Amendment.

Side: Federalist position--YES
WackoAssassi(15) Disputed
4 points

Yes, the 10th Amendment exists, but so does the Necessary and Proper clause which states that the federal government can do anything it deems necessary and proper. Because the federal government is stronger than state governments, the Necessary and proper clause will naturally override the 10th amendment.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
4 points

One example of the constitution being similar to the monarchy of Britain is the formation of a government standing army. Britain's standing army was used against its own citizens to keep them suppressed and take their liberty. We should learn from our history and avoid the formation of a federal standing army at all costs. We should not ratify the constitution.

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

The federal government can never become stronger than the people want it to be because they make up the federal government. The different branches check themselves and slow the process of laws being made so that they are each carefully considered. Corruption cannot make it past the people that it would be inflicting upon itself.

Side: Federalist position--YES
Phantom-Wing(7) Disputed
2 points

Also, the system will be nothing like Britain because a president voted in by the people will not be able to abuse his power like a king. A president will be checked by the branches of government and will make decisions for the people that way he gets reelected.

Side: Federalist position--YES
redhot(26) Disputed
5 points

Also, the system will be nothing like Britain because a president voted in by the people will not be able to abuse his power like a king.

Are you aware that Hitler and Mussolini were both "voted in by the people"?

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
5 points

As a poor farmer, I beg that we do NOT ratify the constitution. I don't want to lose more than I already have. Have a blessed day!

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
4 points

I agree. For the sake of the non-wealthy, we have to prevent the ratification of the constitution. The federalists papers that I have seen have all been written by wealthy elites! The concerns of the poor need to be heeded! Ratifying the constitution will encourage elites to represent all citizens. There is no way for an elite representative in a large republic to understand and reflect the minds of their under-privileged constituents.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
5 points

The constitution should not be ratified. As the creator of the constitution, madison did not consider protecting the right of slaves. Under the constitution, the creator gives tolerance for the south to own slaves. It’s outlawed after the american civil war, and this is because the constitution is not doing its job of making foundation for the United States’s future.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
5 points

If we ratify the retched constitution, we will not be free. We will lose everything we fought for. Stand with me and keep our states free.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
5 points

Why should we support a constitution that doesn't protect every person? What about the slaves? Why are we expected to just wait for the next leader to make a change? How long can we wait for a better life?

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
5 points

The constitution calls for a standing army. This standing army will only cause harm to the people. Why call for an army with no potential threat? Soon the only thing that the standing army will be used for is forcing it's citizens into submission.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
4 points

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

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
drunkenninja(11) Disputed
5 points

The abundance of power is exactly why the system of checks and balances is in place. The government is divided in many different ways between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches to keep them each from becoming over powerful, which is called a compound republic. The branches will all control each other while also controlling themselves. These are called internal and external checks. The power between the states and the US government is perfectly divided. The states do not need power over the huge things like currency, that should be left to the Feds.

Side: Federalist position--YES
FearlessObse(6) Disputed
4 points

Well you brought up the system of checks and balances..how does it work when our government is in a split government like it is now. Checks and balances don't work when the government itself lets other branches run the country like a diplomat..I.e Trump. Brutus 1 gives the example that if you ratify a few rich people will rule over the rest of the people in the country.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
DynamicW(10) Disputed
2 points

The country should not have the ability to have a standing military because it is a danger to the states. Our country should depend on state's militia so as to avoid being suppressed by an overpowered federal military. Think about how the Britain's federal military suppressed its own citizens by enforcing unfair laws.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
quietkillah(9) Disputed
3 points

The federal government is gaining power, but only enough that a singular state cannot gain enough power to become the federal government themselves. Federalists 10 states, "These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of unsteadiness and injustice, with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations." Private rights of citizens must be monitored to some extent to prevent the taking over of factions. Had a majority of the population agreed with the actions of Lopez having guns on school campus with no federal government to overhear the state's position, the state governments could just as easily create a majority faction and be the federal government themselves. The constitution supports the ability of the federal government checking and balancing states so that actions cannot be made with no repercussion.

Side: Federalist position--YES
4 points

If the Constitution were to be ratified, the states would lose their power to the national government. In Maryland v. McCulloch, the state of Maryland lost against the national government in a fight to tax the national bank. The Constitution uses vague powers, such as the Necessary and Proper Clause, and take powers away from the states. With the Constitution, the states do not have the power to tax. The Necessary and Proper clause is way too vague to be used against the people and takes away our freedom. The government uses the Supremacy Clause also to hold their power over the small states. Through vague clauses and power clauses in the Constitution, the government can manipulate us small state governments and abuse their power. The Constitution should not be ratified!!!!!

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
4 points

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

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

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
4 points

The constitution should not be ratified. Under the constitution, all citizens are not equal. The creator of the constitution, Madison, wants the best man to win the race. According to Federalist 10, “the protection of these faculties, is the first object of government.”(p301), the government's job is not helping everyone to be equal but protect the qualities that make us unequal. But in Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states: "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
4 points

The constitution doesn't have to be ratified, the states can handle their citizens without the help of a federal government. In the U.S. V. Lopez case, Lopez was accused by the federal government the same way the state accused him. The federal government gave a harsher punishment to Lopez which wouldn't have happened if the case was left to the states.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
3 points

Not to mention that the federal law that got Lopez into such trouble was found to be unconstitutional, and passed by a corrupt government that did what was in their best interests. Even if it was done for moral purposes, Congress should not overstep their boundaries and allow the states to have their 10th amendment rights.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
3 points

The Constitution should not be ratified. There should be small state governments and no large government. The Constitution creates a large central government that will overtake our freedom and take the power from our states. According to Brutus 1, if the rich are in power in a large republic, then the farmers will not have power over themselves. The people would become "subjects" once again. The Constitution gives too much power to the large national government and takes too much power from the smaller state governments.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
RuffDespera(3) Disputed
7 points

If farmers were to have power and majority rules then they farmers will have it their way. Farmers will be able to pass laws that help their position. Like debt free laws, so no one has debt! Then the banks won't be loaning out money anymore and the economy would go down. Smaller state governments would have less freedom because majority factions will rule in the states and the minority will be tyrannized by the majority. Why is majority factions a bad thing? Because they will have uncontrolled power in the government!!

Side: Federalist position--YES
Thames(175) Clarified
5 points

RuffDespera, you got to clean this up. You contradict yourself. You're saying your proposal would kill the economy and tyrannize the minority. Rework!

Side: Federalist position--YES
Thames(175) Clarified
6 points

where, in his words, does Brutus say the rich will rule? show his reasoning.

Side: Federalist position--YES
phantomkilla(1) Disputed
3 points

Brutus 1 states, "... if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannical aristocracy..." Essentially he is saying that, with a large government, the few rich will rule over the many farmers and not share the same ideals, as they are not experiencing the debt and hardship that they are in a small state.

Side: Federalist position--YES
Phantom-Wing(7) Disputed
5 points

But this is disproved by Federalist 10. Once there is a large central government, the people of the nation, in this case the farmers and debtors, will have the right to vote for their representatives. This is not a system with King where those in power are in line. Any one person has the ability to run for an office to try to make laws in the system under the Constitution. The people have a say in who represents them. The people give the government its power.

Side: Federalist position--YES
phantomkilla(1) Disputed
3 points

While anyone can vote and anyone can run to represent, a large republic will lead to gridlock. Majorities cannot form and there will be too many opposing opinions, which will cause the gridlock.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
3 points

The constitution should not be ratified. If we ratify the constitution, we will experience the same tyrannical power of Great Britain we fought so hard to get away from. On top of the central government that takes away all the important duties states should have, the necessary and proper clause overrides what little power the state governments have left. In fact, if destroying state legislatures is deemed necessary and proper, the minority faction will have absolutely no representation in the government. The existence of small state governments allows equal representation opportunities in law making for both aristocracy and farmers, taking this aspect of government away will destroy any democracy in this country.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
Thames(175) Disputed
4 points

What part of the new gov't would most resemble the tyrannical Great Britain? You pointed to the elastic clause, but should have pointed to a new creation of the federal constitution.

Side: Federalist position--YES
redhot(26) Disputed
6 points

What part of the new gov't would most resemble the tyrannical Great Britain?

You and your class keep continually making references to "tyrannical Great Britain", but other people keep pointing out that Britain has not had an empire since the early 20th century, whereas America has spent 93 percent of its life at war with other countries. This is exactly how Nazism took off: with people pointing fingers at government constructed bad guys, without ever considering what they themselves were doing, and how it might be interpreted as "tyrannical" by others. There have been almost 200,000 documented civilian deaths from violence in Iraq since your country illegally invaded it, and you are here criticising Great Britain for something which occurred 300 years ago. You cannot see the wood through the trees and personally, it boils my blood that you are so fundamentally delusional.

Supporting Evidence: Supporting Evidence (www.globalresearch.ca)
Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
WackoAssassi(15) Clarified
2 points

The creation of a large republic takes away the representation of civilians.

Side: Federalist position--YES
Desperados(17) Disputed
1 point

If anything having strong state governments would be tyrannical because they would put themselves first and the other states second. With a strong federal government not tied to a state its harder to put people first. With a strong federal government laws and money can be spread across the country evenly whether then the states hoarding it to themselves.

Side: Federalist position--YES
WackoAssassi(15) Disputed
4 points

But the government will not spread it fairly, a strong federal government will have elites willing to abuse power to help their own people. Having a central government that regulates commerce will only give selfish representatives more money to give to their wants, rather than the country's needs.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
quietkillah(9) Disputed
0 points

If anything a large republic secures the voice of the people more than state governments do. With only state governments, Federalists 10 states that there is no one to protect minority factions that are taken over by majority factions without a federal government. Essentially, that would be saying that minority factions matter less when you are considering them as a part of the state. But in reality, having more grouping, the states, allows for less majority uprisings and more popular government and democracy. This is the true definition of giving voice to the people.

Side: Federalist position--YES
BurritoLunch(2477) Disputed Banned
-4 points
Thames(175) Disputed
5 points

Just looked over at this. You don't have much to say, do you? Starting off with "twat" talk is lame. Apologize to the youth I teach or I will block you from this enlightened debate.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
MadSamurai(14) Disputed
5 points

I can smell your response through my computer

go outside and see the sun, it is good for skin. you should also pay rent to your parents, 30 year olds usually pay for where they live

goteem

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
WackoAssassi(15) Disputed
5 points

Good day kind sir, if you would please direct your attention to the "Fourth Block" in the title, you would know that this is for a high school class. So, thank you for your input, but just know that the man who is most confident in nature (you), is naturally the most ignorant.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
3 points

If the constitution is ratified, it will cause the government to be ineffective. A large republic can’t work because there will be so much variance that gridlock will occur. Furthermore, Representatives can’t possibly know their constituents because there will be so many per representative. These are the reasons that a large republic has been avoided in history.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
3 points

The constitution calls for a large republic which will only lead to gridlock. Nothing will get done because there will be "a constant clashing of opinions" by all the different representatives in this republic.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
Desperados(17) Disputed
6 points

This is true but also false. Yes there will be differences of opinions and it will make things go slower but it will not lead to grid lock. Luckily we have a good set of checks and balances the people elect the officials. The majority of people do not want gridlock they things to change for the better. So lets say the officials do gridlock the system, all that means is that they wont get re elected. And since there career is on the line and they want to make money they will do everything they can to please the people so they can get re elected.

Side: Federalist position--YES
WackoAssassi(15) Disputed
5 points

Even if these checks and balances work rather than creating gridlock, what will the government do when something urgent comes up and the elected officials can't create a compromise? This system of checks and balances could put America in danger.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
quietkillah(9) Disputed
4 points

The clashing opinions are purposely made prevent the formation of majority factions and take away power of the individual citizens. The different branches of government encourage compromise and a government that carefully looks into the best interests of the citizens rather than making rash decisions that have a negative long term effect. Gridlock and caution of the future are 2 separate ideas, and having clashing opinions only makes for more consideration on the success of our nation.

Side: Federalist position--YES
5 points

Yes and if the people who elect the officials like to see our country grow. If it stops growing then we as a country elect new officials. This is also a way for the people to have control over the government.

Side: Federalist position--YES
2 points

The Constitution removes power from the States and makes them dependent on an all-powerful central government that, if not kept in check, will become totalitarian in nature. As seen in the historic 1992 case, U.S. v. Lopez, the federal government overstepped its boundaries by creating a law that was found to be unconstitutional, as it did not fall in line with the Constitution's "enumerated powers". Had this case not challenge the law, then the injustice would not have been rectified and would remain, perhaps even to this day, in effect. What's stopping the federal government from disregarding the Constitution entirely and becoming yet another tyrannical, all-powerful monarchy, similar to Colonial England?

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

The structure of the federal government argued by James Madison in Federalist 51, allowed the state of Texas to check the federal government. Had this structure not be included in the Constitution, Lopez would have been charged with a federal crime. The structure allowed for a double security for individual rights.

Side: Federalist position--YES
CrazySamurai(3) Disputed
3 points

While you are correct in this assertion, the main issue is Congress's ability to bypass the Constitution in some circumstances. Yes, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1992 was found to be unconstitutional in a short time frame, only two years, but imagine how many times that law was used against the people and how many federal convictions could be made within two years. The amount of time does not matter; the Constitution is capable of being circumvented, allowing the federal government to oppress the people.

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

The Constitution strictly designed the federal government so that no singular branch could gain too much power. Federalist 51 states that the most powerful branch, the legislative, was split into to sides, the house and senate, that would oppose each other. The opposing sides of the most powerful branch and other branches that check one another force the federal government to move slow and compromise. Not only are they checking one another, but the different branches of the government are composed of normal people alongside of elites. The composition of normal citizens in the house along with elites making up the governemnt and the checks and balances of the branches together completely contradict the ability of the federal government becoming totalitarian. It is not only strictly enforced, but checked by the citizens themselves.

Side: Federalist position--YES
2 points

The way the constitution sets up the proposed republic is dangerous. It gives the federal branch too much power over the states. The supremacy clause puts the federal legislation above the states'. This could be abused very easily along with the Necessary and Proper clause. It is so vague that the federal government can justify almost any legislation or orders with it. The Federal Branch could even justify getting rid of state governments because the very words “necessary” and “proper” are subjective. We have to protect the state’s rights and say no to ratifying the constitution.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
quietkillah(9) Disputed
3 points

The states still have the right to dispute the federal governent's use of the Necessary and Proper Clause. For example, in US v Lopez, the federal government made an attempt at using their enumerated and extended powers to convict a state citizen rather than letting the state handle it. The states used their referenced powers to defend their citizens and win back the ability to convict him under their own circumstances. Just because the rights of the state are not as explicitly listed does not mean they are not there. These referenced powers are left to the ability of the states to take advantage of just as much as the federal government could use the Necessary and Proper clause.

Side: Federalist position--YES
quietkillah(9) Disputed
3 points

The Constitution strictly designed the federal government so that no singular branch could gain too much power. Federalist 51 states that the most powerful branch, the legislative, was split into to sides, the house and senate, that would oppose each other. The opposing sides of the most powerful branch and other branches that check one another force the federal government to move slow and compromise. Not only are they checking one another, but the different branches of the government are composed of normal people alongside of elites. The composition of normal citizens in the house along with elites making up the governemnt and the checks and balances of the branches together completely contradict the ability of the federal government becoming totalitarian. It is not only strictly enforced, but checked by the citizens themselves.

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

In the court case McCulloch v. Maryland, the state of Maryland opposed the federal bank in their state. Instead of the government recognizing the state's concern and taking into the account the ideas of the citizens, the government cited the constitution's vague necessary and proper clause to justify the bank's existence. However, the constitution also says that "The powers not delegated to the US by Const. Nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people." The reserved powers were violated because of the vagueness of the federal government's enumerated powers.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
Thames(175) Clarified
1 point

"federal branch"? clarify

the rest is solid--you point to the Supremacy Clause very specifically

Side: Federalist position--YES
DynamicW(10) Clarified
5 points

Anytime the "federal branch" is mentioned, federal government is what it means.

Side: Federalist position--YES
2 points

The constitution should not be ratified. Giving away power is easy, but taking back the power can be very tough. A strong centralized government has all the characteristics of the Great Britain’s government, whom we fought so long to be free from. In article 1, section 8, it is declared “ that the congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers…” (p301) The necessary and proper clause are so vague and elastic that it allows the federal government to do whatever they want by relating it to necessary and proper clause. For example, in the case of the US. V. Lopez, the federal government uses a vague clause to establish laws that are not constitutional.

Side: Anti-federalist position--NO
redhot(26) Disputed
5 points

A strong centralized government has all the characteristics of the Great Britain’s government, whom we fought so long to be free from.

Is this supposed to be a joke? Your current president is a fascist. Do you even understand how fascism works you bunch of goddamned idiots?

Side: Federalist position--YES