- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
This glosses over lots of stipulations and issues. No one man rules alone, this the basis of a modern government and the title of commander in chief is no different. The President does have the power to solely send troops to only to a certain extent. Yes, he has the power to influence the paramilitaries, however many decisions are trusted to other people. In terms of the legislative's power in this, they also have the power to retract the president's troops in the War Powers Act, giving the legal right to overrule the "Commander in Chief" and flex the muscle of the legislative.
While the Executive Privilege enumerated in the Constitution is an undeniable strength of the executive branch, it is not without its various holes. It can be worked around and has been worked around. During the Nixon controversy, privileged was called for by Nixon time and time again, however the legislative advocated for the judiciary to allow for his transparency, this being an informal of the legislative. In any case, transparency is good for a democracy; the people knowing about how their government is ran is not a bad thing. And in some cases, its even a bad thing to keep things secret, these scandals can internally hurt the government and even the basis of democracy!
It is in the name, a "Veto Override" by definition displays the power of the Legislative Branch. Regardless of polarization or divided government, the enumerated ability to ignore a veto was made by the creators of the Constitution to limit the powers of a tyranny or overbearing executive. An concerning the 11 percent example, this is still a very large amount! The power is not used more because a tyrannical dictator is NOT THE NORM. Imagine a game of sports were just because of the rules 11 percent of the time, the loser was crowned the winner! A Veto is an important ability, but the power to reverse one is even more so. The Voice of the people here still hold sway.
One of the distinct features of a nation, country, and world power is War. Enumerated in the constitution is Congress ability to declare war. In the case that the legislative branch does declare war, it brings with it heavy implications. A proper declaration brings about it many monetary grants and funds seen in previous conflicts, such as the War on Terror, where congress empowered the President with their funding to do what needed to be done. This constitutional power is an enormous one and is what dictates entire global affairs as well as domestic ones. The weight of the US military is not present without the explicit permission of the elected body that is the Legislative Branch. Lastly, this will always be constitutionally supported.
An inherent power of the Legislative branch is its constitutional power of impeachment over any government official. The power has even been seen to be used to great effect, seen in the Nixon administration, wherein televised oversight of the impeachment process killed his approval and strong armed him to resign. Nothing is stopping a similar case for any executive branch member. Moreover the qualifications for impeachment are left vague with lines such as "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" for the stretching of legislative power. The executive is put at ultimate check here.
An undeniable and enumerated power of the Legislative branch is the Power of the Purse. In broad terms, the power extends from passing taxation legislation to passing bills concerning the budgeting of agencies. Directly impacting the Executive Branch. This budgeting power is specifically important to the impact on the Executive, the ability to effectively turn off funding can kill agencies. Moreover it is constitutionally supported and will always hold up in courts.
The Constitution is in no way linked to the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is, at its core, a limitation of citizens rights for a consolidation of government to potentially bluster the nation. In this frame, the very citizens that are being censored absolutely need protection or a buffer against a more powerful government. The Bill of Rights enumerates very specific terms in order for the "necessary and proper" clauses of government to be unable to trample the basis of human rights. Without the inclusion of a Bill of Rights this Constitution looks and reads more like monarchy than it already is.
Taxing power is the very reason we broke from Great Britain and you suggest we replace it with an exact replica in our Confederation? Our current taxing system won us a war against the largest military force in the world. How can ultimate power rest in the hands of the people when the very people are being suppressed by debt and taxes. As Brutus puts in "Without money they cannot be supported and they[the states] will dwindle away, and as before observed, their powers absorbed in that of the general government. "(P.310) These new tax powers of the central government will bankrupt the states and leave no room for support nor opposition to an unjust government.
And what of the vast majority of time that our nation is at peace? A dictator or faction strong arms the majority into subservience because it is "Necessary and Proper" to the safety of the country? Moreover, even in the case of needed immediate action cannot we trust in our own people? If England or Spain invaded tomorrow, I am sure our delegates would unanimously agree on swift action. This vague stating of powers can only lead to disaster, or worse, monarchy. As Brutus puts it "... the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their control over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty."
(New Military Power)
A standing military is a ridiculous demand and a clear power grab. The Constitution advocates for a standing army even at times of peace. Their attempt at consolidation of new found power is doubly dangerous with their standing army. As Brutus detailed "the new over-powerful central government would use a standing army to crush local militias."(P.255) The Federalists are creating a government that is impossible to be loyal to while also being impossible to resist, we have a name for this, tyranny.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!