The New Constitution
Federalists-For it
Side Score: 32
|
 |
Anti-Federalists
Side Score: 23
|
|
|
|
|
The people of America are too inexperienced. They lack the proper knowledge to run America. I am sure that the Anti-Feds have the best interest in mind, but farmer John certainly does not know what is good for the country. On the subject of the House of Representatives, the number of reps is too little. This leads to a concentration of power in one area making the public interests unsafe. Yes Anti-Feds, we do care about the little guy. The proposed solution consists of 65 reps at first. Every 3 years, one representative is added for every 30,000 people. Side: Federalists-For it
There are very few "farmer John's" left in this country. Today's American farmers are largely college educated, most with advanced degrees. Yet, THEY, for the most part, only see the country's needs from THEIR perspective. We need to see from ALL perspectives, not just the "Anti-Fed" perspective either! We would be WEAK without a Federal Government to bring ALL perspectives together. Without a Federal Government that LISTENS to ALL perspectives! This NEW government is showing signs of listening to THEIR perspective, obviously a minority one, one that chooses to ignore the 65,845,000~ that voted AGAINST their perspectives. They won the election. That does NOT give them the right to ignore the MAJORITY of this country's people! To "create" their own Constitution! Side: Anti-Federalists
1
point
Mr. AlofRI, you're right, there may be fewer "farmer John's" now but what IS increasing is people living below poverty and in the lower class. Back in the 1770's, farmers were lower class and the majority of the U.S. With that being said, you would indeed think that their voices are being heard, right? WRONG! The elites are the only ones that will be heard and will only look out for themselves.. YET, they are our so called "representatives" or our "leaders." If anything, they are the ones going against the majority. The powers are unequally distributed! The Federal Government is not fair to those who have a harder life. Side: Federalists-For it
The Constitution will bring a united defense policy. Theoretically, the federal government can declare war and raise a standing army, this is true. However they can't force states to meet a soldier quota, or to donate equipment, weapons, or even monetary support. If Congress needed to declare war, but no states wanted to enlist or help, we would be at great risk of losing our new found freedom. This is a threat to national security and needs to be ratified. Side: Federalists-For it
The Articles are a sad excuse for a constitution and allow too much democracy throughout the states. A unitary model of government is the only legitimate option. Under the Articles, the nation's ability to collect taxes and raise an army is a futile effort. This nation can no longer rely on the militia and citizen armies to protect our people. America will play a major role on in the world so therefore, it must have a trained, strong army and navy for security and protection. Side: Federalists-For it
2
points
The new constitution establishes a government capable of controlling the damage caused by factions which are groups of people that gather together to promote their economic interests and political opinions. Without it factions will continue to infringe on the rights of the people. Side: Federalists-For it
The Anti-Feds argue for a system that empowers the common man. This sort of system is too easily manipulated and too easily susceptible to mob rule. Farmers know not of how to run a country. They scare themselves stating how they fear elites running America. In this new system of government, the people must be able to trust their government. Unfortunately, the Anti-Feds choose to distrust the government opting instead to empower the states. This is not the United States of America. This is united States of America. Side: Federalists-For it
1
point
1
point
As of now our Union is extremely vulnerable. Right now, Great Britain is building a huge standing army. At any moment we can be invaded and not be able to do anything about it. Our militia is not experienced enough, strong enough, or big enough to handle Britain's standing army. Without the aid of the French there is no way we could have won the Revolutionary War. The only thing that could protect us from Britain's standing army is one of our own. This army will be on guard and protect us 24/7 from any conflicts that may come. A standing army would have been a great help during the Shay's Rebellion. With a army already in place coming from Washington, D.C the Rebellion would not have lasted as long and would not have left the Governor of MA asking anyone for money. Side: Federalists-For it
Congress cannot settle disputes. All they can do is offer advice, basically. Without the power of federal court systems, states can be as biased as they please. Unsettled disputes cause tension instead of unity, and are straining our country. With set laws and uniform courts, we will be able to settle these arguments while also ensuring that all Americans have fair trials, and that all states do not have to stress over their boundaries. Side: Federalists-For it
Pardon me if I get some of this wrong, because it's been a very long time since I was in school to study and discuss it... My understanding is the Articles of Confederation are the original Constitution minus the Amendments. Based on that I'd say it's absolutely true that a new or amended Constitution is necessary. Our Bill of Rights is at the heart of what it means to be a US patriotic citizen, and our interpretation of what's in that has evolved with generations (thus women's rights, clarifications on minorities' rights, etc, were possible through amendment even though during the time of the founders those rights essentially didn't exist). And providing no means to update would also mean it's not a "living" document, which essentially means you're stuck forever with whatever the original authors said or meant, which is a pretty backward way to govern when you think about it honestly. Now if we were to take this discussion a step further and ask what would I personally like to add or change I'd say: - Clarify the 2nd Amendment to indeed still protect gun ownership but acknowledge public safety to moderate it - Redefine how our election process works so we can get past this direct election / electoral college election confusion - Give rights to individual citizens, and state clearly that corporations and parties and groups of people do NOT have those same citizen rights as the individuals. - Give a right to public education up through high school level. - Give a right to identity theft protection (which, granted, won't actually stop it from happening, but will give impacted individuals legal bite if they do succeed in proving they were a victim. It wouldn't just be how to undo the mess and get your life back, it would be a violation of your Constitutional rights by whomever dared to do it). Side: Federalists-For it
The Articles of Confederation was the original Constitution, but it was a completely separate document. The Article of Confederation gave more power to the states and had a weak federal government. The main problems with the Articles were that it did not give the Federal Government a standing army and that the Federal government did not have the power to tax the states. These weaknesses led to Shays' rebellion which made the founding fathers realize the need to reform the Articles of Confederation. They ended up completely rewriting the document and with what is now the Constitution. Side: Anti-Federalists
Thank you. And with that knowledge then I again support the Constitution. As a confederation without a central army we never would have become the global influence that we are today. Furthermore, just like my argument about the Amendments, it was clear the original confederation needed an updating - thus the reason it was. Side: Federalists-For it
2
points
Mr. Grenache the Article of Confederation and the Constitution are very different actually. The Articles of Confederation made the federal government very weak by giving it little to no power. The federal government basically had to depend on the government for money (had no power to tax states) and for an army (could not raise one of their own).The Articles also only had one branch of government, legislative. The Articles did not set up an Executive branch (no president) or a judicial branch (no courts). The Constitution was written to fix these problems and essentially make the United States less democratic. Side: Federalists-For it
2
points
"My understanding is the Articles of Confederation are the original Constitution minus the Amendments." This is where you are wrong. The Articles of Confederation are much different than the Constitution without the amendments. Here are some reasons why: Under the Articles-- states are sovereign, no independent executive, no federal courts, congress had no taxing power or power over interstate or foreign commerce, each state has one vote, ammended only if it had approval of all the states, congress had specific powers, only the state government could act directly over the people. Under Constitution-- People of the whole nation are sovereign--exercise of sovereignty is divided between states and the central government. Independent executive chosen by electoral college. Separate federal court system, with power to resolved disputes between the states. Congress has power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises." Congress has power to regulate commerce with other nations and among the states. Congress consists of two bodies. Number in House is based on population and each state has two Senators. Amended with approval of 3/4 of states. Congress has implied as well as specific powers. Both central government and state governments acts directly on the people. Side: Federalists-For it
Apologies my fellow Federalist. The Articles of Confederation were very much NOT like Constitution. This was due to two facts. Taxation and Military. Under the Articles, the federal government did not have the authority to tax the states. They could only ask for taxation. The federal government was also forced to depend on state militias for protection as they did not have the power to build a standing army. Both of these issues were addressed and corrected when the Constitution was created. Side: Federalists-For it
Thank you. Indeed we are so much better off having the ability to protect ourselves cohesively and raise funding for national needs than instead having a ragtag of 50 states primarily doing those things themselves or taking forever to agree to or provide for whatever those needs are. Side: Federalists-For it
On the contrary, we Federalists do not, in fact, believe that a Bill of Rights is necessary nor the heart of what it means to be a US patriotic citizen. The Bill of Rights is considered a parchment barrier. There are more effective and efficient ways to protect rights compared to how the Bill of Rights does. For example, we as a country could have government institutions and procedures such as regular elections, 3 branches of government that are checked by the other branches' power, the preservation of local governments, trial by jury, and last, but certainly not the least, habeas corpus. In conclusion, these are the institutions and procedures could protect us more effectually than a short, limited list of rights like the Bill of Rights. Side: Anti-Federalists
The Bill of Rights is one of those examples where even IF you could achieve the same protections with alternate documentation you literally have nothing to lose and everything to gain by continuing to have it as Amendments. They are singled out for emphasis, packaged as a set of meaningful rights, and generally are better remembered and debated than the main body of the document. Side: Federalists-For it
The Articles of Confederation were absolutely the first Constitution, however it was much more different than simply not containing amendments. Alterations and amendments were allowed, but never implemented because the states were in such disarray. By creating the Constitution, things became easier both by bringing unity to the States and by outlining the specific way in which to ratify the amendment. Despite the amendment-making process becoming more difficult, by allowing amendments to simply be attached like a footnote we avoid having to rewrite the entire document. Legislature was unicameral under the Articles, while under the Constitution it became bicameral. (House of Reps. and Senate) The members had different term times (one year) and also term limits (three terms per six years) The Articles also did not have an Executive branch! They feared a centralised and powerful government. We now have a Supreme Court to settle disputes as well, instead of Congress dealing with it. There are many other differences between these two documents, such as the power of Congress to tax, among other implied powers. Side: Federalists-For it
|
Back on the farm, we elected who was gonna do everything. Democracy was key. Without democracy, Paw woulda been driven just 'bout crazy with decidin' who in tarnation was gonna shovel them dern cow patties. With this necessary and proper clause, there ain't no limit to what the fed'ral government can do. Us farmers ain't even got ant representation up in New York City with all them aristo-crats. We may be simple minded folks, but we know what's good and whats been working for these United States. The key is that last word... The States. We want our representation and the only dern place we're getting that is in the House and in our state governments. Ooooooh boy, if there was a standin army, who's to stop them folks from pointin them muskets all us farmers. The thing we cit'zens need is a paper statin' all our rights, mhm. Without that, whats to stop these officials from takin' away the rights of me 'n my 13 sons. I just reckon I'm scared just 'bout outta my wits that this ole elastic clause is gonna take away my freedoms I done got shot in my biggest toe for and watched my closest chum, Carl Joe Williams, get got through the gizzard for. I may be simple, but so is my argument. I just want to keep my freedoms. I fought hard for them just like you educated boys, and I just can't wrap my head around why y'all are trying to throw all them rights away Side: Anti-Federalists
Basically, I'm obsessed with Democracy. In order for our country to be successful, we must listen the people, and not just the rich aristocrats. A strong central government should be the enemy. We need to stop relying on the popular rich guys (a.k.a. Elites) and listen to the majority for once -- the people living outside the cities working on their farms! Rather than basing our whole country on a small group of people, let's listen to the farmers, the simple-minded, the Common man! States should hold the power. By supporting the Constitution, you are settling for our past. All the Constitution will do is recreate an Elite Society. Side: Anti-Federalists
Considering that the majority of our nation is based on Farmers and the common man, this option of strong state governments is the one to chose for a simple reason. The option that is in the best interest of the farmers especially will be best for our nation as long as the majority is the common man instead of Elite, and I don't see that change happening anytime soon. By expanding westward, we can control more land for the farmers to benefit from. More land means more product and money for farmers, which means a better economy and lifestyle for the majority. Westward is the way to go. Side: Federalists-For it
1
point
The idea of creating a strong central government is not to leave out or forget the common man. Our only goal is make our 13 states a stronger country. Leaving the states with basically all of the power is menacing for a country that is just starting to form. Examples of this is the Whisky Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, the high tariffs that is in place between states, and the fact that the states left troops without men and supplies during the Revolutionary War. We have tried leaving the states to deal with things and that wasn't successful AT ALL. The ONLY way for us to be a competitor with countries like Britain and France is to have a centralized government. Side: Federalists-For it
2
points
Democracy has never, and will never, work. In any Democracy, Tyranny of the Majority is inevitable. Take ancient Rome, for example: minorities, or those with unpopular religious views, would often find themselves subjected to gladiatorial drafting, being fed to lions for public amusement, or worse. Let's assume that this problem suddenly didn't exist; either it magically disappeared or someone devised a foolproof way to maintain a Democracy while rendering it a non-issue. In any case, under a Democracy, all citizens must either spend several hours a day (if not more) voting on (or researching) legislation, or fail to fulfill their duty as a citizen. I don't know about you, but that lifestyle certainly wouldn't work out for me, along with the majority of the public. Side: Federalists-For it
Thanks, LichPotato. Someone in my class needs to concur with L. Potato by relating James Madison's goal set out in Federalist Papers 10 and 51. A little more guidance....L. Pot. is criticizing a direct democracy (Madison had the same misgivings). What type of democracy did Madison set up in which power ultimately rested on the will of the people but was out of their hands on a day to day basis? I'm asking you agree with LP by expanding on his point. Side: Federalists-For it
3
points
The New Constitution looks well-formed but is filled with errors. The powers are not properly distributed among the people! With this New Constitution, only the rich and elites will be heard and represented. Representative - It is implied that the person elected for this purpose, should reflect those who appoint them. So in my opinion, the representative should reflect America's people and their interests. Not just one group of well-borns who will neglect the rest of America's people. Everything about this New Constitution is corrupted. Side: Anti-Federalists
I agree, I want to keep my rights and my direct democracy. With this "New Constitution" I think it will immediately turn into a monarchy. With a strong central government, we will be stuck in the same situation as we were before over 200,000 people died for our freedom. They did not die just for us to lose it merely two decades later. Side: Federalists-For it
|
