Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 14 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 89% |
Arguments: | 5 |
Debates: | 0 |
Having a standing army is not inherently a bad idea, but as said in Brutus I, we have just gotten out of a war with England, and our people deserve time to rest. Having a standing army would require constant funds as well to maintain, and this would result in the government taking taxes on their citizens. The government has made it clear that they plan to take taxes in a non-direct approach, leaving the states who also need funding to only be able to tax via direct taxing, which will surely cause much uproar with the citizens in each state. If war is needed, the militias are always able to rise back up, so a standing army would only cause multiple problems with maintaining the happiness of the American people.
Hey, just wanna clarify this is an argument based around the time period when the Constitution was being debated on whether it should be ratified, and therefore we are not talking about anything related to Trump, Iraq, or anything else in the modern era. I thought this would've seemed obvious but I guess it isn't, so any other responses you make should be based on that period, otherwise you are just ignoring what the idea behind this is.
I agree that a centralized government is not inherently a bad idea, but this type of centralized government has never been done at this scale. There are way too many people in this nation to try and unite them all, so allowing states to maintain the most power would allow them to govern their own people.
I can smell your response through my computer
go outside and see the sun, it is good for skin. you should also pay rent to your parents, 30 year olds usually pay for where they live
goteem
The Constitution should not be ratified, as the government should not have such a large amount of power. We have just exited the Revolutionary War, and we should not give birth to an overbearing power like the one we just managed to emancipate ourselves from. As stated in Brutus I, the constitution allows the government to make decisions based on how "necessary and proper" they are, which is such a vague term that the government could theoretically apply it to, such as abolishing state governments to have full control. This also applies with their "supremacy" Clause, which would make them have true rule over any other governments within the country. This extreme reach of power was shown extremely well through US V Lopez, as the government used the vague Commerce Clause to reason that guns appearing on a school campus would result in house prices dropping and lower education leading to lower level employment. In the end, the Supreme Court agreed and stated that this reach went against the constitution, but what would happen if the Supreme Court came to side with the Federalists? When that happens, all hope is lost, and we shall return to the rule we escaped from.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |