- 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.
Three words; WAR POWERS ACT. First of all, it's unconstitutional as it totally goes against the President's label of being commander in chief. By definition, a commander in chief is someone who is in supreme command of the country's armed forces. The War Powers Act is too restrictive on the President's ability to respond to emergencies. So... how does this make the executive more powerful than Congress? Well, what has Congress done to punish the president and past presidents that violated it? NOTHING! And the Legislative is well aware that it's been violated many times. Scoot out the way Congress, leave the President to military business (as you have been!).
Executive privilege is one the President's main powers that make him stronger than Congress. This privilege grants that the Executive can remain in secrecy and the Legislative must be transparent. Basically, the President can withhold information about any action within the White House and/or Congress if he deems necessary. June of 2019, Trump has used his privilege to block reports from Congress about his possible wrong doings. This is honestly just protecting him, and Congress has yet hound down onto him for it. So why does this make the executive more powerful? He can release what he wants when he wants! National security lies in his hands. It's protecting the White House, too.
The constitution should not be ratified as it sets the ground for a standing army; a huge disadvantage to the people. We need militias in order to maintain power within the states. In Brutus 1, it reads “A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens” (pg 314). In a militia everyone is well acquainted with one another, which sparks confidence knowing that these people will work well together. In a standing army, the officers have the power of punishing when misbehavior arises. This only sparks fear and lowers the chances of people actually wanting to join the military.
The necessary and proper clause is not reliable for the people's welfare. This claim is too vague and allows the government loopholes through power. Our argument starts from the words "necessary" and "proper". What do these mean specifically if each man in a place of power have different opinions and views? In today's age, the clause has been used in many debates that involve personal stance, such as legalizing marijuana, Obamacare, and collective bargaining (situations that commonly have 2 opposite sides); further proof that it's not mature enough to be used professionally. We can refer to Brutus 1 (pg 310-311) for an overall view against the clause, stating "A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying execution, all powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States ... is very comprehensive ... and may, for I ought know, be exercised in such a manner as entirely to abolish the state legislatures".
The necessary and proper clause of the Constitution will weaken state governments, which will take away support from the national government.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!