- 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.
A president cannot use pocket vetoes reliably to have control over passing legislation. The only month that Congress is guaranteed to be out of session is August. A singular month out of the entire year is an incredibly small time frame for the president to really take advantage of pocket vetoes. More importantly, a bill only has 10 days on the president's desk and will be passed as a law automatically if the president does not take action on it and Congress is in session. If Congress is presenting bills to the president's desk, then it is likely that they will be still be in session 10 days after.
It is important to note that executive orders are not laws. While executive orders carry the same weight as legislation, calling executive orders laws implies that the orders cannot be overturned.
Remember that Congress can still overturn a president's veto as well. It takes a 2/3 vote in both houses, but Congress has successfully override vetoes in the past. The president also has the Supreme Court to worry about the constitutionality of his executive orders! He is not able to "get what he wants" so easily if a judge finds his order unconstitutional.
While it is true that executive orders allow the president to work faster than passing a bill through Congress, the orders are not permanent. The fact that executive orders can be reversed easily isn't a strength. It shows that executive orders only work for the short term, since the next president can undo all the progress made. On top of this, the Supreme Court can declare an executive order unconstitutional, so the executive branch is still checked but by the judicial branch. He needs a constitutional basis or a statute to support his order in the long run and is not able to make these orders haphazardly.
This would not only hurt the people or citizens of the United states but could ultimately leave them with no money or power to do anything.
Without taxing power, the federal government was unable to pay soldiers after the Revolutionary War. This left many veterans returning to their farms in debt. In addition, after the war, the state government "raised land taxes on common folk by fivefold... to pay off war debt" (52). The state government, in this instance, directly harmed a large part of its population by taxing farmers unfairly. After Shay's Rebellion, debt forgiveness laws were passed, which encroached on bankers' rights to property and liberty. Now, the minority was being targeted by laws that the state legislature passed. Had the federal government originally had the power to tax, such an economic downturn could have been prevented.
The Necessary and Proper clause is very vague and unlawful because governments could use this clause to pass any law if they deemed it necessary/beneficial to the Nation.
All laws start in either the Senate or House of Representatives. Senators are elected by state legislatures, and representatives in the house are elected by popular vote. The representatives who the people and state legislatures voted for are making these bills, and both houses have to agree with its contents before it is evaluated by the president. Thus, they would not be able to propose such bills without backlash from the state and its government!
This talks about how the Necessary and Proper clause could lead to the central government abolishing state governments.
The government does not have the power to do that, and because senators and house members are representatives of each state, it would be illogical for them to pass a law that went against their state's best interest.
Have our militias failed us yet?
The Continental Army that George Washington led was supplemented, and remained under the control of the individual states, by state militias. During the Revolutionary War, George Washington and his soldiers consistently had a shortage of supplies and were frequently on the brink of starvation. With a standing army, not only would the soldiers be more coordinated, but also the supply networks would be more stable and secure. State militias will not go away, either! They are simply just too unreliable to depend on completely, which is why a standing army would benefit the country.
A Bill of Rights is wholly unnecessary. Having a Bill of Rights creates confusion because if a right is not listed, is it still granted to the people? It creates unnecessary ambiguity especially since basic rights such as the right to privacy are not listed either. From a Federalist point of view, “Regular elections, three branches that checked one another’s power, the preservation of local governments, trial by jury, and habeas corpus protect liberty more effectively than a limited list of rights” (69). The Federalists’ proposed government structure ensures that the people have rights that aren’t just limited to what is listed on a piece of paper. In addition, because the Congress has only the powers listed in the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, Congress cannot take away a person’s individual rights because it does not have the power to limit it.
The Articles of Confederation created a system of government that turned the states into country-like entities controlled by simple majorities. Debtors (the majority, or farmers) were able to elect representatives that voted in narrow interest for themselves, often to the creditors’ (the minority) detriment. In Federalist 10, James Madison felt that a large republic would solve this issue. He states, “you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority… will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens” (305). By having a large republic, the pool of voters is much bigger, making it less likely for majorities to form. This is ideal because as previously shown in the past, majorities tend to vote what would benefit only them, usually for the short term. With no majorities, minorities cannot be dogpiled with the passing of policies.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!