CreateDebate


Debate Info

89
60
Federalist position Anti-federalist position
Debate Score:149
Arguments:102
Total Votes:190
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Federalist position (55)
 
 Anti-federalist position (41)

Debate Creator

Thames(131) pic



Should the Constitution be ratified (second 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: 89
VS.

Anti-federalist position

Side Score: 60
4 points

As a federalist I believe the ability to have a standing army even during peace time will give more security to the livelihood of the states since they wont have to rely on untrained citizens to take up arms in defense. This creates job opportunity's for citizens interested in the country's well being and the government has the ability to focus on more relevant issues to satisfy the needs of all sides affected by said issues

Side: Federalist position
yingsterysl(5) Disputed
2 points

The Federalist want a standing army because the local militia refused to fight farmers.(shays rebellion) Farmers which bring food to the community and are friends. They would abuse the power they would have with a standing army.

Side: Anti-federalist position
sirissm(11) Disputed
1 point

A standing army goes against everything the anti federalist belive in

Since the articles of confederation anti feds have been talking and supporting a militia , made of the people with the peoples best intrest in mind . And even following Shays rebellion in 1786 we still support the idea that a militia is better. Even following the 2nd amendment it talks of keeping a well regulated militia and it even in The 14th admendment

Standing armys have no morals

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

Yes a standing army has no morals. It will more than likely be the grand engine of oppression. It will also have a strong tendency to depress and inslave the people.

A standing military will not be safe for the people's liberty!!!!

Side: Anti-federalist position
sirissm(11) Clarified
1 point

The militia are made by the people and of the people and are doing the people work.

The standing army that is controlled by the president has no real since of right or wrong ,there willing to shoot civilians and be extremely rude , where as the militia only fight when necessary

Side: Federalist position
Coyote(2) Disputed
1 point

A standing army is critical to the safety and well being of a nation. What would would happen if we had militias and another county tried to attack us? The answer is we would have a hard time mobilizing troops and loose the war. Also if two states that had militias got into an argument don't you think that would cause a civil war?

Side: Federalist position
3 points

In order to run a powerful and secure government, the constitution must be ratified because for what the Anti-federalists fear, there is a solution! The solution is a large republic, this way there will be more options and elites to choose from to represent the majority and minority factions in their long-term interests.

Side: Federalist position
finnsilly(10) Disputed
2 points

In such a large republic, even if it does not fail, how can we be sure that the peoples' voices will be heard? How can a state official represent every person and every opinion in the state? The short answer is the representatives won't know the people they represent anymore. (pg 313) Trying to represent an entire state will result in a mess trying to appeal to all the constituents. Instead of having a large republic, we should focus on our state governments.

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

A large republic is not the solution. In a small republic all of the citizens needs and problems will be heard. The citizens are the lawmakers and know what's best for them. If elites were to run the country there could be a possibility of them only doing what benefits them.

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

A large republic with a centralized government is the best idea for our government structure because it will have a larger talent pool and checks and balances.

(Federalist 10)

Side: Federalist position
2 points

Yes!

This will insure that our government is fair and does not have one branch with too much power like that of a dictatorship such as North Korea. Each branch will have its own powers and will limit the other 2. Also what we need to get through these anti-feds heads is that WE THE PEOPLE have Power of the Purse meaning taxing power originates with US not THE BIG CENTRAL GOVT. (Pg. 303).

Our new gov't is not a big bad too powerful gov't, rather it is a government by the people for the people and that is what the anti-feds will not accept, therefore we must show them this will work in order to get our 9/13 states to ratify.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

yes this is true and elites with a large republic,elites representing the people will make decisions based on the long term interests of them.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

As a federalist i believe that America needs a stronger central government and stronger executive because a stronger federal government allows for quicker and more decision policy action. The government in this case can pursue their agenda with less gridlock and potentially accomplish a lot more. I also believe that we do not necessarily need a bill of rights because the constitution is sufficient enough to protect our rights.

Side: Federalist position
foxfoxfoo(3) Clarified
2 points

According to Federalist 10 "our governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded" these state governments are too democratic.

Side: Federalist position
donald_trump Disputed
1 point

NO, this is false!!! A strong central government would be to strong then it would take away our individual rights without the bill of rights!! It would just be dominated by the wealthy and would only make decisions for themselves. We will end up just like Britian!!!!

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

The government may be quicker with an executive branch, but this branch will become too powerful. Since the executive is also the Commander in Chief, he can dictate his standing armies to do as he pleases. And additionally, you say that in this form of government there will be less gridlock, but if anything it will create MORE gridlock. In such a large government, it will be impossible to pass any controversial laws. The "constant clashing of opinions and representatives... will [slow] the operations of government" (pg 313). Nothing will ever get done if we are unable to agree about anything.

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

We do not need a stronger central government. Small governments do just fine the citizens are able to actually be apart of the say. The bill of rights is necessary because it states our rights firmly and there would be no confusion.

Side: Anti-federalist position
3 points

As Hamilton argued that it would not matter if the necessary and proper clause was deleted from the constitution, it does not add or take away from government powers. “Wherever a general power to do a thing is given every particular power necessary for doing it, is included.” -Fed No. 44

Side: Federalist position
2 points

What Hamilton means that it does not add or take away from government powers is for example the "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". The "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does not add or take away from the government powers.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

As a federalist, I believe we must tax individuals because of how big the US is in debt. Everyone has played a part in Americas debt, therefore everyone should play a part in getting the government back up. If we do not tax individuals, we will not have a strong military. It will become smaller and not as ready. If we give taxing powers to central government, they can help the US get back on our feet debt wise through taxing. If we do not allow central government to control our debts, the US is slowly draining.

Side: Federalist position
1 point

PG. 338 section 8 (constitution is going to create a strong national government)

Side: Federalist position
2 points

Anti-federalists think that the Constitution is granting too much power to the federal courts, but I completely disagree. The federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and this leaves a lot of cases to state/local courts. The new federal courts are a good thing to have moving forward in this new government, and it helps uphold checks and balances on the different branches of government. These federal courts guarantee the people their freedoms and protect them from abuse of government. This relates to the system of checks and balances that is discussed in Federalist 51 (pg 318).

Side: Federalist position
killerpopfar(10) Disputed
1 point

What exactly will "limit" said jurisdiction? The government itself. The government could EASILY use that to its advantage. The central government keeping itself in check? That sounds like letting a five year old be home alone all day with no babysitter and expecting them to get onto themselves when they do something wrong.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

Anti-feds don’t support the government being able to tax individuals, but the power to tax is necessary in order to repay our nation’s debts and provide a strong military to protect the people of our country. Without the power to tax, the country loses power as a whole. Federalist 10 talks about breaking up the current factions our government has, and giving taxing powers to the central government achieves this goal.

Side: Federalist position
sirissm(11) Disputed
3 points

I believe this statement is completely outrageous, Once the government has the power to tax us ,they will own us and take our property for failure to pay

. And as started in Brutus 1 its stated that the Anti federalist hate Direct taxation. Even though the federalist have created the power of the purse and granted the power to the house , it still has to be supported by the senate , who could easily disagree with it ; leaving it ineffective We also disagree with the idea that its necessary to repay the debts ( in which we didn't all contribute to ) and fund our military which we disagree should be a standing army.

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

Most of the taxes that are put into place by this new government are tariffs, taxes on imports and exports. How exactly do you suppose that implementing these tariffs will give the government the power to “take your property”? The enumerated powers granted to the government in the Articles of Confederation include the power to tax, to regulate commerce, to raise/maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office (page 294-295). These are all things that are put into place to help put structure in our government that benefits the people, not manipulate the people and try to steal their land.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

The Articles of Confederation left openings that demagogues could use to their advantage by appealing to the majority to stay in power. A good way to do this was to put different factions against each other as even "the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts.''(pg 301)

Side: Federalist position
2 points

The people will not be able to govern themselves without set rules and limitations. It is human nature to put one's wants and needs before those of others. Madison refers to this fact with how it is impossible for someone to be their own judge in a case "because his interests would certainly bias his own judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity".(302)

Side: Federalist position
JamesDD(232) Disputed
1 point

It is human nature to put one's wants and needs before those of others.

No it isn't. Great father you are going to make, pal.

Side: Anti-federalist position
donald_trump Disputed
1 point

Yes it is, if you want a polar pop and you only have a dollar and you were supposed to buy your friend a drink guess what you are gonna do. Buy the polar pop and drink that thing right in front of your friend.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

When the antifederalists were arguing against the idea of a big republic, us federalists tried to give them a reasoning behind our idea of a big republic throught the constitution (pg. 335-356). They were concerned about having too little democracy, they want enumerated powers. Federalists tried explaining that having a large, strong, national government was better. Why? Because the bigger the group the bigger the voice and say you have in the government, also making it a more equal play.

Side: Federalist position
sirissm(11) Disputed
1 point

Regardless to the benefits the large republic may or may not provide A large republic is not what we need. Too little democracy is still evident in the fact that the governments are taxing us and owning our property. And we wanted a BILL of rights not Enumerated powers , the enumerated powers added things such as the supremacy clause and the necessary and proper clause that basically trampled over our human rights. And lastly saying national government is better due to equality and bigger voice is simply not true, look at it like this , The national gov u speak of is separated into 3 branches,THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN ALL 3 BRANCHES. The executive doesn't have to listen to the judicial and controls the lifeless standing army .( mar bury vs Madison and Ch23) The congress which is supposed to be by the people is controlled by wealthy demagogues who support their own beliefs by coercion of other parties(Brutus 1) . And lastly the Judicial doesn't even have an enforcing power to make things happen ,(mar bury vs Madison ) and just like with congress you have people who serve lifetime positions corrupting government

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

Small state governments are TOO UNSTABLE. This is because they were too democratic, and the states were controlled by too many debtors. This led to the passing of the debt forgiveness law meaning debtors did not have to pay back loans creditors gave them, but when they did pay it back it was paid in carrots. SO UNFAIR!!! New Gov’t would not stand by this and will make it fair for everyone because there is simply no way peace will remain in the states with this unruliness happening. (Pg. 300)

Side: Federalist position
TogueSlathin(6) Disputed
1 point

state government are more relatable to the people since mostly the laws and regulations are the peoples ideas. democracy is never a bad idea and making the people have more of a say in their government helps them to trust the system more. debt forgiveness laws gave people a way to pay off their debts and value is value.

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

When anti-federalists requested a bill of rights, us federalists thought a bill of rights was not necessary because the power that is not held by the central gov’t is held by the states and their people. After years of debating, we did compromise with the anti-feds and gave them their bill of rights immediately after the ratification of the constitution. (Pg. 69 & 70)

Side: Federalist position
bluefacebaby(6) Clarified
1 point

On page 69, you will see where my federalist brothers argue that a list of rights could be "used against someone who discovered a new right." We see on page 70 how passing this bill of rights gets our constitution ratified. "In the end, the Federalist did not see much harm in passing the Anti federalists Bill if it led to more states ratifying the constitution."

Side: Federalist position
1 point

Under the Articles of Confederation, it is extremely hard to tax. Take for example during Shays Rebellion. The Federalists had no choice but to sit back and watch as a civil war almost broke out because they could only get 37% of the states’ revenue. Taxing power is critical to a country’s army, without it they will fail. Power of the Purse is the perfect solution for taxing power. It combines a strong central government’s taxing power while retaining representation of the people. This is why I am against The Articles of Confederation.

Side: Federalist position
1 point

The Anti-Federalists are trying to accuse Federalists of wanting tyranny and all power to themselves within the government, which is nowhere near the case because The House of Representatives is elected by the people and we stated that all taxes must go through The House (reference to POP); and this is giving power to the people. But just as The Anti-Federalists minds’ work; once a certain faction has too much power they will abuse it. With that being said the people can only be given so much power and so as the government.

Side: Federalist position
1 point

It is a well known fact that a more centralized government is more likely to survive than the one we have now.

A centralized government has a more unified and secure structure when it comes to passing bills and laws than our system which consists of distant states making their own independent laws and taxing systems.

Though we have a defense system, it is made up of several militias that can only defend their own surroundings. Even with sufficient supplies, it is most likely that these men will refuse to follow commands as they won't go against the people of their community. What we need is a loyal, central standing army prepared to go into battle even at times at peace so that we are not caught too off guard.

Our government can't even collect taxes from the states without their approval. This is bad as the government needs the money to pay off the debt from the war and circulate money to the states. If this is not done, the government will have no money supply to support either itself or the states.

Side: Federalist position

A standing army will make the country more powerful against other nations as well making the country more organized because laws will be enforced. “What about the standing army being tyrannical?” you may ask. The answer is militias staying, but just being regulated. This will be your protection.

(Constitution Article 1.8 enumerated powers—340)

Side: Federalist position
TogueSlathin(6) Disputed
1 point

Militias are the best form of protection and are local and by the people. The problem with the standing army is that if we needed to take back over because of our rights being violated we couldn't do that. since the standing army would over power the states. And the executive would use the standing army to control the states and to keep them under its rule since the people stand no chance.

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

Without a strong central government, our states will be more like a group of independent nations. They will fight for what is best for themselves, they will be selfish, and nothing will get done.

Side: Federalist position
killerpopfar(10) Disputed
1 point

It is not necessarily wrong to fight for what's best for themselves, nor is it selfish. If each state focuses on their individual needs, the country as a whole would be thriving.

Side: Anti-federalist position
donald_trump Disputed
1 point

The strong central government would be selfish. They will vote for policies that better themselves and create laws that help their party. It would end up being like it was before!! We would be under a despotism that we fought so hard to remove ourselves from. It would take away the sovereignty of the states. A strong central government threatens our personal liberties!!!

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

A standing army is good for national defense. A Standing army must exist, the political system outlined by the Constitution would prevent such a force from threatening American liberty.

“Congress shall have power to raise and support armies.” -Sec 8, clause 12, Art 1

Side: Federalist position
3 points

Federal courts are not the ideal court systems because they impose superiority over the state courts. The federal courts are not local to the people and are not relatable. They overshadow the state courts because of the supremacy clause. Since the supremacy clause allows for the federal government to have authority over the laws and sentences that the state governments can impose.“Supreme law of the land.” This causes the states government to be weak since the federal government can shut down laws that state governments pass when they feel like it is necessary and proper to the well being of the united states.

Side: Anti-federalist position
savage6(7) Disputed
1 point

The new federal courts were necessary to provide checks and balances on the power of the other two branches of government. By providing checks and balances the federal courts could be equal and fair with each other, so there wouldn't have to be conflicts on which courts would have more power than others.

Side: Federalist position
3 points

The Federalists wanted a standing army because the local militia did not listen when they were ordered to fight farmers.(Shays Rebellion) We do not want a standing army because they would abuse their power and crush local militias. Brutus stated,”Citizens under a standing army would obey their leaders out of fear while citizen soldiers serving in small republic militias would have confidence in their rulers because the soldiers would know them and would have the power to remove them in local elections.” A militia would never fire against their own people. They are there to protect.

Side: Anti-federalist position
2 points

-Necessary and Proper clause is a fancy way of letting federalist have the loophole around gov

Allowed the government to determine things that were not listed as necessary and proper and can be determined by the government

As its stated in Brutus one on 309 It states that anything they dint list , they will govern according to the Necessary and Proper clause. Which is basically saying even if they don't say what they have the power to do, they can still do it , Using the reason of necessary and proper clause

Side: Anti-federalist position
BittahDemon(12) Disputed
3 points

The necessary and proper clause is no way of putting a loophole into the government. The clause will only allow execution of power that has already been granted by the Constitution. Federalist 33 states that the clause is implied within the Constitution; Congress was given power so they must be able to execute their power.

Side: Federalist position
sirissm(11) Clarified
1 point

In the enumerated powers it talks of having an elastic clause which allows laws to me made using the reasoning of it being necessary and proper to the goverment

This basically Allowed the goverment to determine things that were not listed in the constitution as necessary and proper and can be determined for the betterment of the goverment

As its stated in Brutus one on 309 and in the constitution. For example, the government could not collect taxes, which power is enumerated as Clause 1 in Article 1, Section 8, without passing a law to create a tax-collecting agency, which is not enumerated. Clause 18 has been used for all sorts of federal actions including requiring integration in the sta

Side: Federalist position
MoBamba(9) Disputed
1 point

First of all, The Necessary and Proper Clause is a way of giving Anti-Feds what they want by giving states power but they can't be given too much power because it'll be abused. It's not a loophole but a way to avoid loopholes; because there will be different government branches that will check each other. Yes, it allows the government to determine what's necessary and proper; but only in a certain manner, and if not the federal government, who else should make that decision..States!? No!. In Brutus 1 on page 309 it states that there is no limitation to the necessary and proper clause but according to the enumerated powers there is.

Side: Federalist position
2 points

A large republic will never work. In a small republic, the reason why the people listen to the government is because they ARE the government. They create the laws, so they follow those laws. In a large republic, the executive branch will be too disconnected from the people. The citizens will no longer have a drive to follow the laws since they did not create and enforce them, and the executive will be able to do whatever he wants since us citizens won't be close enough to know what he is doing and stop him. (pg 314-315) And if we don't like the laws being placed, the standing armies will be sent against us. How is this a proper way to run government? Just let us have small republics in our states! That way, we will properly be in control of our own laws and representatives.

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

A large republic will work. People can't be given all the power because if a certain faction is given too much power they will abuse it because people are tribal and selfish, so they will use it for their own benefits. The executive cannot be connected to the people as yo want because as stated in Brutus 1 page 313 lines 6-11; you want the Executives to declare the sentiments of the people but there is no way one representative can know how hundreds of thousands of people feel sentimentally unless there is a large republic and there's a wide range of representatives to choose from, so anyone who shares your common interests shall be appointed to you, and if your representative shares your interests then there shall be no disputes.

Side: Federalist position
finnsilly(10) Disputed
1 point

Your point is exactly why we should stick to smaller republics. The executive cannot understand the interests of the people, so we should be run by individual state governments instead of a central government. In a small state government, the representative will better understand his constituents since they will be people in his community. When a representative has to stand for an entire state, he will lose that connection.

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

A large republic is not the solution. In a small republic all of the citizens needs and problems will be heard. The citizens are the lawmakers and know what's best for them. If elites were to run the country there could be a possibility of them only doing what benefits them.

Side: Federalist position
1 point

The necessary and proper clause is not reliable for the people's welfare. This claim is too vague and allows the government loopholes through power. Our argument starts from the words "necessary" and "proper". What do these mean specifically if each man in a place of power have different opinions and views? In today's age, the clause has been used in many debates that involve personal stance, such as legalizing marijuana, Obamacare, and collective bargaining (situations that commonly have 2 opposite sides); further proof that it's not mature enough to be used professionally. We can refer to Brutus 1 (pg 310-311) for an overall view against the clause, stating "A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying execution, all powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States ... is very comprehensive ... and may, for I ought know, be exercised in such a manner as entirely to abolish the state legislatures".

The necessary and proper clause of the Constitution will weaken state governments, which will take away support from the national government.

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

​The Federalists will just use their power for their own selfish reasons and not to help the people which is why we need a Bill of Rights so that the federal government does not take our power, we need it to protect our individual liberty and power. And Federalists use the necessary and proper clause to take the power the states once had. The necessary and proper clause allows Congress to pass any law they think should be passed so, this means that the Federalists can pass any law they feel should be passed to benefit themselves.. On page 308 it states, ‘’ that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any department or office thereof.’’

Side: Anti-federalist position
Educate_Loud(3) Disputed
1 point

The federalists are not trying to take over the government for themselves, but for everyone!! We believe that the bigger the government the more of a voice each individual can have. We do not just pass laws that are good for us, but the ones that are good for all.

Side: Federalist position
1 point

Necessary and proper clause… The Necessary and Proper Clause is an “Elastic Clause” That can be stretched out in any direction that the federalists want it to be. In Brutus 1 (Pg. 309) The text says, “It has authority to make laws which affect the lives, liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislature power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; - there is no limitation to this power.” This quote mainly is describing the limitations that the Necessary and Proper Clause has due to the effect that it can be stretched and thought into so many different directions.

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

If the Federalists put federal courts in the states they will have more power with the supremacy clause. The supremacy clause establishes that the federal constitution and federal law takes precedence over states laws and constitutions. This takes away the power that the people have. On page 310 it establishes, ‘’ these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts. These courts will be, in themselves, totally independent of the states, deriving their authority from the United States,....’’

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

Necessary and proper clause should not be allowed for the federal government because it gives them to much power. The federal government can justify anything they want by saying that it was necessary and proper to the united states. This will allow them to control the states and move forward their own agenda.

Side: Anti-federalist position

Essentially, the Necessary and Proper Clause is too broad; it gives the federalists the ability to create just about any law at any time they see fit. This can easily create a corrupt government. If the government has all of the power, any law is fair game, which can become dangerous fast.

Side: Anti-federalist position

If we centralize the government, it will not be as functional. It is better for the states to have more power because they have the people and the individual state’s interests in mind. With a smaller group of people to focus on, the state governments would be better fit to suffice the needs of their own people, whereas the government as a whole focuses on the population as a whole. This prevents problems in specific places from being brought to light.

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

A large republic is not the way a country should be ran. In small republics everyone knows everyone. They will know what needs to be done and can get it done in a more efficient way. In section 8, article Ist it states,” Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the forgoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the united states; or in any department or office thereof.” In a large republic situation congress couldn’t make the right laws if they don't know what the citizens actually need.

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

Why would you take the bill of rights away???

The bill of rights secures the peoples basic rights and privileges. It also reserves any powers not given to the federal government to the states and to the people.

Without the bill of rights the government would become tyrannous!!!

Side: Anti-federalist position
1 point

The constitution should not be ratified as it sets the ground for a standing army; a huge disadvantage to the people. We need militias in order to maintain power within the states. In Brutus 1, it reads “A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens” (pg 314). In a militia everyone is well acquainted with one another, which sparks confidence knowing that these people will work well together. In a standing army, the officers have the power of punishing when misbehavior arises. This only sparks fear and lowers the chances of people actually wanting to join the military.

Side: Anti-federalist position
0 points

A strong government can not be trusted!

With a strong government the people of that government could abuse its power. Not to mention you might serve interests of the rich and ignore the common man. The chances of federalists posing a threat to state power and people’s rights are high. (pg.312)

Federalists say they will make laws that shall be necessary and proper, but that’ll just mean they can pass whatever laws they want and even if it’s not announced they can still have the power to do whatever. (pg.308)

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

Checks and balances! The system of checks and balances was put into place for this reason exactly. There are three branches of government, all of them responsible for holding each other accountable, and the power is distributed evenly within these branches. James Madison said it himself in Federalist 51 when he said, “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government.” Take that, anti-fed!

Side: Federalist position
bluefacebaby(6) Disputed
1 point

Absolutely incorrect!!!

With your small state gov't eliminating loans and taking away creditors money and refusing to pay back, this is only harming the weak, unstable, state governments. We have offered to insert a bill of rights into the constitution if you people will just listen to us for once and understand we know what we're doing. Within this new overpowering gov't that will be sure to take over the world, states will all have delegates that will vote representing the people of their state. (Pg. 300-306)

Side: Federalist position
MoBamba(9) Disputed
1 point

A strong government is to be trusted and is the only way to go! The only way anything is going to be abused is if the central government is not given power and that doesn't mean it's going to tyrannical, which is nothing but an assumption made by Anti-Feds. We know a good reliable government doesn't depend on enlightened statesmen (p.302) and that's why there will be enumerated powers where each institution will have limited powers and puts breaks on each other, and this way power won't be given to only one institution to "abuse" its powers.

Side: Federalist position
divinesunset(12) Disputed
1 point

You are making an interesting claim, but a strong government has checks and balances (Federalist 51) as well as representatives that you get to vote on in your state! The common man is going to manipulate the system for debt forgiveness, but elites will represent common people and LONG TERM interests. (page 304) Since you don't like the necessary and proper clause, would you be fine with no healthcare, schools, or banks?

Side: Federalist position
Educate_Loud(3) Disputed
1 point

A strong government is what is going to get us a larger militia, out of debt, and make everything more equal... isn't that what you want?

Side: Federalist position
1 point

Agreed! These Federalists claim that they want to make our government balanced, but they are endangering our states' power. This "necessary and proper" clause is a big red flag... where is the limit to something that can be necessary and proper? The federal government could deem the destruction of state governments as necessary and proper! And without a strong state government, we could not dispute it. The Constitution already set it up so that the federal government has all the good powers. (pg 309) They just gave us the scraps! Ridiculous.

Side: Anti-federalist position
0 points

The necessary and proper clause is just a clause that will give the legislative branch unlimited power.

The clause is a loophole for congress to decide what is or is not a law. They will abuse this power by laying and collecting taxes,imposts, and excises when they want to, also they can lay unlimited taxes on whoever as they please.(Brutus 1, page 309)

This means that congress has the power to make any lay they want to make. Even if it does not have any enumerated powers to make the law they can still over rule it with this clause.It also gives them implied powers that will be debated for many years to come.

Side: Anti-federalist position
-1 points

The federalists can use the "necessary and proper" clause to pass any law they want. Their idea of government will just make us into the next Britain. The "supreme" federal government will make our state powers obsolete, and the executive branch will just become a tyrannical king. Why try to make a large republic when every large republic in history has failed? (pg 312) Let's just continue with a confederation with an armed militia! We beat Britain with this structure, so why stop now!

Side: Anti-federalist position
BittahDemon(12) Disputed
3 points

You anti-feds are too afraid of change! Not all change is bad, and the shift of power to the central government will benefit our nation. Just because the power is placed towards the center does not make it like a dictatorship. We are not Britain! This new government does the opposite; it favors the liberties of the people. Its system of checks and balances distributes power among the different branches to keep one branch from getting too big.

Side: Federalist position
finnsilly(10) Disputed
1 point

We are not afraid of change, but we are afraid of our government crashing and failing before it can start. A republic will simply not work in a country as big as ours is. A republic would work best in smaller areas, such as state governments. That's why we want strong state governments instead of an overruling central government.

Side: Anti-federalist position
JamesDD(232) Disputed
-4 points
foxfoxfoo(3) Disputed
2 points

Actually having a strong central government will be good for us because we will be protected from tyranny, gain dispersed power, and it will increase citizen participation.

Side: Federalist position
Ambassador(7) Disputed
1 point

Even though this structure was with us when we defeated Britain, it doesn't mean that it is stable enough to fit the needs of the people as a whole. If we keep this government, the rights of the minority will be", disregarded in the conflict of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided by...the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority"(pg 300). In an ironic twist, the majority faction will become something similar to a tyrannical king leaving us right back where we started.

Side: Federalist position
Ambassador(7) Disputed
1 point

While it sounds like a great idea to have a several militias in the states, it would never work out in the long run. Militias consists of local citizens which would be a problem as they have too many connections with the people in their neighborhood to do their job effeciently.If we ever spontaneously attacked, it would take more time to prepare each and every militia than it would to prepare a single, well equipped, and trained standing army that is always ready for battle.

Side: Federalist position
finnsilly(10) Disputed
1 point

If we do not have militia, then the federal governments will force standing armies onto us. These standing armies will be willing to kill citizens with no hesitation! If the executive commands them to attack civilians, they will wordlessly obey! In a large republic where not everyone agrees with the laws, the standing armies will be used to keep those who disagree in check instead of compromising (pg 315). A standing army will do more harm than good!

Side: Anti-federalist position
Ambassador(7) Disputed
1 point

A large republic will give us a better selections of elites to choose to be representatives of the people instead of a small group of biased delegates chosen to pass laws that'll only help the wealthy majority at the expense of the poor minority. By having more variety, the public is exposed to delegates "whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations".(pg 304)

Side: Federalist position
Coyote(2) Disputed
1 point

We need a strong national military to defend against other countries. Also If we have state militias, they would just fight and cause a major civil war.

Side: Federalist position
foxfoxfoo(3) Disputed
0 points

Actually having a strong central government will be good for us because we will be protected from tyranny, gain dispersed power, and it will increase citizen participation.

Side: Federalist position
-2 points
foxfoxfoo(3) Disputed
2 points

Actually having a central government will make power become dispersed and divided.

Side: Federalist position
bluefacebaby(6) Disputed
2 points

To start, we are not attempting to control anyone, simply create a system of government that is fair for everyone. Because of our checks and balances, one branch of government will not control the entire system. Too little democracy will not be an issue at all because we will have delegates that will represent the people in every state, and the amount of delegates a state gets is based on it population meaning that everyone has an equal voice. Our constitution is 10000% not based on Elites, it is rather there to benefit all citizens equally and protect YOU from losing basic rights and power. THE POWER IS IN ALL PEOPLE NOT ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE!!! Power of the purse will also ensure that your thought that we will only pass bills we want passed will not be possible. This is because the bills originate in the House of Reps which is controlled by the people. YES MADISON SAID THAT, too bad he is talking about your unstable, poor, weak state gov't and not our new powerful gov't system.

Side: Federalist position
killerpopfar(10) Disputed
1 point

Our problem is not with one branch being too powerful, it is with the government as a whole becoming too powerful. What keeps the government as a whole in check? We elect people. However, our power ends there. We get no say in what actually happens, just who decides. Your last sentence is our problem with "your" government. Ours is not weak. Ours deals with problems specific to our region. Like you said, your new government is pretty powerful. We just hope it doesn't get too powerful.

Side: Anti-federalist position
sirissm(11) Clarified
1 point

Not to mention the senators who were also allowed to serve for 6 year unlimited terms and were given the oppritunty to benifit there particular party , would even allow pepole who were federalist to have more of a say than those not a federalist.They can give out loans and pass debt forgiveness, or not tax the wealthy putting more on the debtors and even

Side: Federalist position
Ambassador(7) Disputed
1 point

While this is true, the whole purpose of this new structure is too prevent biased people from using their position to fulfill their own goals at the expense of others. These elites will be chosen to represent the needs of everyone when a decision has to be made. A new government only sounds bad because it takes away power from the overpowered, tyrannical majority that only looks out for itself with little disregard for the needy minority. The new government's ultimate goal would be to "secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction" (303) as well as "preserve the spirit and the form of popular government" (303) to keep the majority content.

Side: Federalist position
BittahDemon(12) Disputed
1 point

The central government only controls things that the states could not handle regulating on their own. For example, states thought that they could manage having their own currencies. This was until we had states going bankrupt. Shifting power to the central government is allowing our nation to function properly and smoothly as possible. Look at the enumerated powers; no branch of government has unlimited power. These enumerated powers limit what the branches of government are allowed to have control over (page 302). You also bring up the point that people on the supreme court are appointed, but you fail to talk about the members of the Congress are elected by direct popular vote to represent the people!

Side: Federalist position
ssalc(1) Disputed
1 point

The power will be dispersed to many outlets of government and the people will be able to have a say in changes through vote

Side: Federalist position
divinesunset(12) Disputed
0 points

Federalists are not trying to take away your liberties and your ability to participate in government. We just want to provide a stable government with highly educated people so that decisions aren't selfish and manipulated for debt forgiveness. (page 300) Your power to vote on your representatives will protect revenue bills.(page 303) Although James Madison said that people in power will be selfish, good government will not depend on good people. It will depend on structure that keeps interests and people competing and putting brakes on each other. (page 302)

Side: Federalist position