CreateDebate


Debate Info

75
89
For the Constitution (Feds) For the Articles
Debate Score:164
Arguments:61
Total Votes:187
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 For the Constitution (Feds) (28)
 
 For the Articles (33)

Debate Creator

Thames(131) pic



The Constitution or stay with the Articles of Confederation

Farmers and artisans go against bankers, speculators, and intellectuals as the country decides which direction it will take: inward and westward or outward towards Europe.  Trading or farming, growing or selling, state government based or centered around a strong central government. Choices, choices, choices....

For the Constitution (Feds)

Side Score: 75
VS.

For the Articles

Side Score: 89
7 points

Under the Articles of Confederation, chaos is insured, therefore we need the Constitution to provide the sense of authority, balanced power, and control necessary for our country to strive. The Constitution gives the national government the power to tax which allows them to fund our military(aka one of our main defenses against rivaling countries/governments). The Constitution also gave the states an "authoritative figure", the Supreme Court, to resolve any disagreements and to settle disputes to "unite" them together to ultimately work towards a common goal.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
quietassasin(4) Disputed
3 points

They want to tax us so they can control us. They want to take all of our money and power away. And why do we need some big army? The states already have their own armies and are perfectly capable of defending themselves. We already have authority, and it lies within the states. We will not stand by and let the Federalists strip away our personal rights and power in the government

Side: For the Articles
csiegrist(4) Disputed
2 points

Yes, the states have their own armies. However, these armies will be highly ineffective. Imagine if a powerful country like Britain attacks your state: their army would completely overpower that of a single small state! We need a central government to tax the people and fund a large central army.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
5 points

The world is moving towards strong armies headed by strong executives that command strong central govertnments. Its time we get with the program.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
3 points

We cannot keep up with other countries if we do not have a strong army, for this to happen the national government needs the power to tax. States will always be at a stalemate without a supreme court to settle disputes. We will not move forward unless we get a new constitution.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
3 points

The Article of Confederation is not built to support the Confederacy. There are many problems like the states have different currencies so taxation and interstate commerce were a big problem that a new constitution would fix.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
5 points

Under the Articles, chaos ensued: states coining their own money and imposing tariffs on others paralyzed trade, inter-state conflicts and disputes were hardly resolved, and states not being able to compromise made governmental processes hard. Too much democracy! Shifting the aforementioned responsibilities to a strong federal government will provide a solution to these problems and make the union more cohesive.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
3 points

After the chaos caused by the Articles of Confederation, it is clear that our country needs a system to keep the government in check. With three distinct branches that equally control each other's power, our country will be more supported and more well-equipped to trade with the outside world.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
AntiFed(1) Disputed
2 points

Yes the country does need a system to control the GOVERNMENT, that system is called the PEOPLE. The Articles prevent corruption of a central government by giving the power to all 13 states rather than just 3/4 of them, in order to enact new amendments. Another thing, we were built on the principle of hard honest work, therefore there is no need to for a powerful support under trade with other countries. We are self-reliant and sufficient and farming and agriculture will meet our needs.

Side: For the Articles
csiegrist(4) Disputed
2 points

It is true that we were founded on hard, honest work. However, this work will reward us only with things we currently have available. If we extend our reach and trade with other countries, we can use our farming and agriculture as a means to trade with the outside world. A self-sufficient country is necessary, but there is too much discontent with our Articles. A Constitution will be necessary for us to continue growing and keep a stable country with a stable economy.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
dhall9(2) Disputed
1 point

No the articles got the people through the war. Like why would you want to change it? And the constitution is just a way for the government to get more money. The articles is a great thing that really was the beginning and got the people through a lot don’t change it

Side: For the Articles
3 points

The US needs a standing army and a higher power to settle disputes. The Articles won't allow for a federal government to have any power or the ability to tax. If we don't have a way to defend the entire country then we won't be one for very long. Also, we need a way to settle stalemates that will inevitably happen between the states. The constitution would fix every problem that the Articles present. It would put a federal government over the states and it would give it the ability to tax which would fund things like an army. The Constitution is the only way we could progress as a country and as one united country.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
anonymous06(2) Disputed
1 point

We could be much more powerful with individual armies that stand strong over their state. Our country is vast and multiple, spread out governments would protect our lands better and one centralized government will. We could always make decisions to combine our state armies or form alliances with states, but the decision to give people like you all of the power? Or have only one army? These are decisions that could weaken or even fail our country. The Constitution isn’t perfect either, it comes with it’s own problems that are far larger than the ones we could easily fix with the Articles of Confederation.

Side: For the Articles
3 points

The Articles of Confederation gave the states too much power, which meant there was too much of democracy. The national government was weak and was decentralized. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government was not able to tax the states, but instead, the states were able to tax and some would tax relentlessly; which was a reasoning behind Shay's Rebellion. There was also no national currency and so each state has their own currency. This caused problems between states whenever there were trades between said states since they would have to convert currencies to meet the other states currency. Another problem was that there was no congressional power over commerce. States would fight over state boarders and other problems that would occur between states and this almost caused a war between states. States didn't have a strong centralized government to handle these situations or give them a certain structure.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
3 points

Under The Articles of Confederation, the states had more power than the national government. The Constitution fixed this issue with federalism. Federalism divides the power between National governments and state governments. Some powers, like declaring war and making treaties, were given directly to the national government. As well as some powers, like regulate education and the issuing of a license, was given directly to state governments. Other powers are considered shared powers between the national government and the state government. This was a necessary solution to regulate the fear people had of the people having too much power.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
ARuss(3) Disputed
1 point

The Constitution clearly favors the national government and robs the states, and thus the people, of their power. The constitution takes a small fear of the people having to much power and transforms it to the much larger fear that the constitution will create a large centralized power. This large centralized power provides ample opportunity for someone such as the President to run a monarchy similar to the one we just gained independence from.

Side: For the Articles
3 points

Under the Articles of the Confederation, only the states had the power to tax instead of the national government. This caused problems with our nation's debt and funding. Our nation could not even fund a navy. The Constitution gave power to the national government to tax to help pay with the debts and give us a common defense.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
3 points

The Articles of Confederation gave states the power coin their own money, creating interstate commerce troubles when individuals had to go through exchange rates. The Constitution fixed this issue by solely giving the federal government the power to coin money.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
rdgeiselman(6) Disputed
1 point

That is not even a problem, people are happier this way as they have more power. This “issue” is more than made up for by the added power and say the people have.

Side: For the Articles
CoreyNilges(1) Disputed
1 point

With the way we have handled money under the Articles, yes the people had more power but the entire country could not pay its own debt or bills with different kinds of money that had no real value outside of that state. With a Constitution we would have one currency that is backed by the entirety of our country instead of just a certain state like Rhode island having its own tiny currency

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
2 points

The Articles of Confederation need to go. The states have too much power, and chaos is already happening. There is no central power to direct the people, only the people themselves. The U.S. needs a Constitution to make things like a Supreme Court that can solve states problems. Another issue is that the nations main defense (our military) has no way to be funded. Since the states have the power to tax, the National Government cannot fund the military. Another reason against the Articles of Confederation is that we have no central Government. We need something that can direct the nations people. The Constitution can do just that.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
JJZA(10) Disputed
2 points

Why would we depend on a Constitution to direct the people, if the people who are writing it have no idea of what it is like to live in our situation and because of that don't know what we need or even how we could better ourselves. The Constitution doesn't get rid of chaos it only changes who causes it.

Side: For the Articles
2 points

The Articles of Confederation have caused our country to go to ruins. We need a strong government to regulate relations between states and provide a system of taxation.

We are lacking funds to be respected by other countries. In order to do so, we need to have a unity between the states and a national government would do just that. We believe that freedom is important, but it should not cost us our country's law and order. If we were to go to war with another country, we would need the stability of a government to oversee our country's actions. In order for our individual rights to be protected years in the future, we must have a national government.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
2 points

The articles would not be able to keep the states together. Each state wanted more land and power which eventually cause a civil war before we were even a country. The States were not a country they were like countries. No one had the authority to stop the states or the state legislatures. We need the Constitution to uphold and insure balance of power in an actual country. We need an army for when some other European King tries to take what is ours like the British did.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
rdgeiselman(6) Disputed
1 point

The states being more like countries give them more accountability in decisions they make. One could not argue what could have happened such as a war because it did not happen so there is no way of knowing. The people have the authority to stop state leaders, as they know where they live and can speak to them more one on one. Obviously we are an actual country and defended successfully against a world power. We can defend all foreign kings we want but you would have one take over from inside the country.

Side: For the Articles
mzjuarez(2) Disputed
3 points

You are wrong, friend. The purpose of this new Constitution is not to dis-empower the people, but to keep those who are uninformed and misguided from subjecting everyone to their tyranny. Under the Constitution, one is still able to speak to their congressman. Under the Constitution, the president is not a king, he is simply a part of the executive branch and is subject to the checks and balances of the legislature and judiciary. Under the Constitution, this nation can stay united and stable despite disagreement between states. Under the Articles, we experienced chaos and rebellion, this Constitution will impose the rule of law more heavily to ensure we remain union. Your arguments and concerns are poorly conceived and easily disputed.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
CoreyNilges(1) Disputed
2 points

If the people could control the state leaders then issue like Shay's Rebellion would not be able to happen. The people had some power but not many assurances that someone would protect them from their own government. The Constitution sets up a fair and just system to control how much power the government can have in any one part. This balance is what can make a strong central government without hurting our own people.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
csiegrist(4) Disputed
1 point

If each state acts like its own country, there will be no end to internal wars and trade halts in our own country. We need a powerful central government that can regulate trade between states (using a single country-wide currency) and the ability to settle disputes between these states. With a branch to interpret laws, there will be less conflict between our states. Also, a nationally-funded military will defend us against other countries that may try to destroy us.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
1 point

We Federalist are all for the Constitution and what it stands for. Without the Constitution we would not be able to fund our military. Our military is very important because it is one of our main defenses against enemy states, and without them we would be unable to defend ourselves from any possible attacks. The Constitution also gave us the Supreme Court to handle disputes that were not being handled before. The Articles of Confederation is good, but we just feel like Constitution is better and enforces things that will help our country improve as much as it can. The Constitution also gives us a National Government. We need a strong government to keep our country in the position if not a higher position then what it already is. We want to be the best and in order to do that we must do whats best for our country. The Constitution just so happens to be the best ;)!!!

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
8 points

The constitution is only a tactic for the federal government to give themselves more power and money. Under the Constitution states will have no say in what happens to them, instead, we will have to obey every command the national government gives us. Furthermore, our issues are local, so one can't expect a government consisting only of rich elites to be able to represent the needs and interests of the bulk of the population accurately. In order to feel protected from the tyranny of the federal government, we demand the ratification of a bill of rights that protects the citizen.

Side: For the Articles
thawizard(3) Disputed
3 points

The Constitution is not only a tactic for the federal government to give themselves more power and money. It is a way of balancing the powers for everyone. The Constitution gave the national government the power to collect taxes which helps funds the military, which is one our main defense mechanisms. It also made it so that the states would not have to continuously go through any of the hardships of having to exchange currencies in order to perform a proper trade. The Constitution gave us the Supreme Court which helps settle any disagreements the states go through, whether they are local or not. What if one day the local issues become national issues? The Supreme Court provides us an adequate system of representing our needs and interests of the bulk of the population and we have the Constitution to thank for that. The Constitution still allows us to have a say in what happens to us, it just allows for us to be heard in a different way.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
6 points

Why should the wealthier states have to be taxed to support the states who have debts? Due to our hardworking citizens, we support our state government with no problem, but we don't have extra money to send to the national government to help other states. It's unfair for our tax dollars to support other states.

Side: For the Articles
midnightegg(2) Disputed
3 points

With a national government, there would be more unity between states. It seems as if you would rather have division. Maybe start thinking about how the country would thrive instead of only worrying about your own state.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
rdgeiselman(6) Disputed
2 points

This country is full of differences in production, people groups, economic ability, and intectual ability, it is out differences that strengthen us, so worrying about my own state is a good thing.

Side: For the Articles
gverrett(1) Disputed
1 point

The country cannot be strong with only a few strong states. The richer states will help develop the other states. America will thrive if all the states are doing well and out of debt. The wealthy states need to realize that.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
rdgeiselman(6) Disputed
2 points

If the government assumes debts, there will be no strong states, and as you said, a country cannot be strong with only a few or no strong states

Side: For the Articles
5 points

Why should we form government that is similar to the one we just fought to withdraw from? If it wasn't working with Great Britain, why would we recreate a centralized government that removes individual power we have and need as individual states.

Side: For the Articles
5 points

The Federalist elites say we should be more like European countries. They want us to crowd into big east coast cities and wear ridiculous outfits and makeup. They want to control everything and make us "equal to" Europe. They want to control our armies so we can be "protected" from them. But there's an entire OCEAN between us and Europe. What we really need to be doing is going west and claiming more land for the states. We are farmers and artisans, we deserve to have endless acres of land in the west. Who said the rich elites get to be in charge of everything? NO ONE!!! We can still be in charge and have a voice, but only if the states stand together to keep the Articles.

Side: For the Articles
5 points

The Constitution would create one national Supreme Court that would be too far away and too centralized to provide good, quality justice for the average citizen. If the states were able to control who handles disputes, like they do under the Articles, the people and their individual rights could be more closely regulated and protected.

Side: For the Articles
4 points

Why should we replace the articles when they got us through the Revolutionary War? This new constitution would just take away the power that WE fought and died for! It would allow the national government to control us and limit our freedom just like King George did!! Our country is much too large to be dictated by a single central government. The federalists do not care about the people's rights. With the states in charge, citizens actually have a voice. Popular participation is greater under the Articles of Confederation, and it protects our citizens against the government, unlike the constitution!!!

Side: For the Articles
4 points

With the establishment of the constitution, a federal government would assume nearly all rights that the states posses. By doing so, they would strip the power of the states which in turn takes the power from the people. Giving the people no voice directly resulted in the Revolutionary War. With this in mind, the federalists are creating the same situation which would ultimately provide the same results.

Side: For the Articles
CoreyNilges(1) Disputed
1 point

Under the Constitution, the states are awarded many of the same rights then had before such as the ability to make laws and control who is elected into the senate. The part taken away from the states is the ability to manage the money. Which the main issue with each state controlling the money is that when the money is needed for something like the army everyone has to agree and then follow through with it. Some examples of this are the Revolutionary army not having shoes during Valley Forge or not being able to pay for the veterans of the Revolution. This is why a strong central government is necessary to our success as a nation and to our future as an independent country.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
ARuss(3) Disputed
2 points

These so called "rights" the states are allowed to posses are so much more limited than what they had been allowed to do before. In terms of making laws, the central government still oversees these laws being passed. They can very easily step in and declare these laws as contradictory to federal laws. The federal government and federal agencies will also force laws onto the states without attempting to compensate them for the required changes. When it comes to direct election of senators, the people may be able to elect these senators, but in what realization are they allowed to rescind the election when the senator is not representing the ideals of the state? The lack of money for veterans or basic needs for soldiers was an ongoing problem even after the Constitution. Veterans of future wars are still not always able to be paid and there is always a lack of supplies in wartime. A strong central government does not clearly address these problems you have displayed as a cause of the Articles of Confederation.

Side: For the Articles
4 points

The Constitution does not adequately represent our country, the middle-class is the majority but it has very little say in this new constitution. The higher class can help make decisions on some things, but have very limited views on what normal people need or want. The people have little to no say on how money is spent either, which really affects the middle and lower classes.

Side: For the Articles
3 points

Why would we replace the articles with the constitution when we just broke away from the same form of power that the Constitution will create?

Side: For the Articles
3 points

You say we need to take the Articles of Confederation away but thats what gives the poeple power and equality. If they take it away only the higher class group of people will have a say, and then how would that benift everyone? So in a way its not making our country stronger its dividing us and causing more chaos. The government will have too much power over the people and their will be no justice which upsets us. We need a way to be able to have a say in how our government works.

Side: For the Articles
gverrett(1) Disputed
3 points

With a centralized government, there will be more support for the country with an army funded by taxes. The people will still have their individual rights.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
rdgeiselman(6) Disputed
2 points

The people lose their individual rights of taking care of their own money and knowing what it is spent on. The states already have militias of their own which in case of war can be unified to help on a common front.

Side: For the Articles
mgonzalez(5) Disputed
1 point

True we will still have our individual rights but the Constitution does not represent the majority. It was written by a few elites, not the common rabble, which makes up the majority of our country. The Articles of Confederation allows us farmers and artisans to have some say in government.

Side: For the Articles
3 points

Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution lists the new powers given to Congress and ripped out of states's hands. Almost all the power the states formerly had under the Articles are given to Congress to control, which is too much power! If we, the states and the people, don't have a voice in these discussions and matters, we have basically reverted back to how we were treated under King George.

Side: For the Articles
3 points

a central government that is vested in too much power can’t represent the interest of the average citizen in every part of the country. we worry that individual liberties could be trampled and as a new fledgling country that has just broken away from england, we would have traded one tyrant across the ocean (the british king) for a bunch of small tyrants in a powerful central government.

Side: For the Articles
thawizard(3) Disputed
2 points

Whether or not if we were to stick with the Articles of Confederation or move on to the Constitution, the system of government will probably never be able to satisfy every single individual it is over. However, with the Constitution we are provided a military, which is one of our main defense mechanisms, the ability to trade with other states without having to go through the struggles of exchanging currencies to make the trades successful. Without the government, or anyone for that matter, acting as an authoritative figure, the states will be thrust into constant chaos and endless disagreements are practically ensured. The Constitution provides the Supreme Court which gives us that figure to settle any misconducts.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
2 points

The Articles of Confederation was the first successful effort of organizing and mobilizing the original thirteen colonies of the nation. The Articles of Confederation gave the original colonial powers some added leverage in handling diplomatic affairs, including negotiating land deals with foreign governments. The people have the power in the articles that the Declaration says we should have. In the constitution, as the people have no say on money or legal matters, one could argue that our “inalienatable rights” are being alienated.

Side: For the Articles
1 point

The state governments were more accountable under the Articles of Confederation, and representatives were much more accountable, too. Under the Constitution, the representatives are all the way in Washington and could care less. They serve themselves more than they state that elected them. Also, the fact that each state was under its own control meant that they could act more autonomously, and their views and opinions couldn’t be overruled by a majority.

Side: For the Articles
1 point

The articles is the right thing to do. People loved the articles because the state government was more accountable than the federal government. Also your vote counted more. The articles are also ok because there may be problems but at the same time a lot of the things aren’t being inforced. The artickes also got the people through the war. The constitution allows the government to control and be over people. The articles did a lot. Why get rid of it now??? Exactly no point. KEEP THE ARTICLES

Side: For the Articles
1 point

we want to encourage democracy because we fear a strong government that will be dominated by the wealthy. we feel that the states would be giving up too much power to the federal government. Another major objection is the lack of guarantees of individual rights in the Constitution where it stands.

Side: For the Articles
vuresti(2) Disputed
1 point

the federal government wouldn't be too powerful, considering that there are many built-in safeguards to the constitution life a limited government, separation of powers, and checks and balances. In the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, it states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Which means that any power that is not given to the federal government is given to the people/states, so the people/states still have power. Also during the ratification process, twelve amendments to the constitution were passed and ten were ratified by the states (this was known as the Bill of Rights) which covered the concerns over the lack of protection of individual liberties.

Side: For the Constitution (Feds)
1 point

why would we stand for the constitution when it fails to protect individual rights. The national government would be just as cruel as the British. Our states need individual rights to feel like we have a voice and the freedom to make our own decisions. The hard work produces self-sufficient Americans that are responsible enough to make our own decisions.

Side: For the Articles
0 points

If the Federal Government assumes state’s debts, how much freedom would the states have left since they’d be in debt to the federal government? We should stay with the articles where each state is in charge of their own affairs and debts.

Side: For the Articles