- 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.
The legislature has the power to overturn an Executive Order.
Congress can do this by passing a bill that blocks the Executive Order.
Although the president can veto this bill, Congress has the power to override a presidential veto with a 2/3 vote in both houses.
The president is unable to undo this bill and would have to make another executive order to get around this law.
The legislature has the power to impeach the president.
The house can vote to impeach the president. Once the House votes to impeach, the president gets a hearing in the Senate. A 2/3 majority vote can convict the president and remove them from office.
Congress is currently using its subpoena power to control the media and show the people how powerful it really is by trying to impeach Donald Trump.
Although this is not a common occurrence, Federalist 65 shows that the founding fathers intended this power of impeachment to be used a lot more.
Congress has the power to override a presidential veto.
After a presidential veto is placed on a bill, if a 2/3 vote is recorded in both houses, the bill can be passed.
During the Obama administration, the president placed a veto on a bill that states families of 9/11 victims can sue Saudi Arabia. Congress proceeded to get a 2/3 vote in both houses to override this veto.
Although it is relatively difficult to override a veto, if the president begins to veto too many laws, his public support will plummet and eventually he will be tried for impeachment because he will not let Congress do their job.
With out a standing army there is no possible way the states would stand a chance against another major power like Britain.
If you are claiming that the states would stand no chance against a major power such as Britain how would you explain the militias defeating Britain during the American Revolution? The militias have shown us that they can stand up to even the strongest of powers and they have not failed us yet. There is no evident reason to get rid of the militias. They have proven their strength against major powers across the world.
Even without a standing army the United States is not open to an invasion. There are militias that will stop these outside powers. The militias have not failed the United States yet and they have proved that they will only stand up for what is right. A standing army will only listen to what the government is telling them to do. If the government tells them to fight for something that is wrong, they have no choice but to fight because it is their job. The militias are more beneficial to the states than a standing army.
The necessary and proper clause is not necessary for our country. The necessary and proper clause allows Congress to make any laws it feels are necessary. This does not guarantee that Congress will do what is best for the people. The congress members are elected by a majority, therefore they will all have the same ideals which will lead to them making laws to help that majority. Federalist 10 says, “The latent causes of faction are thus shown in the nature of man.” This will not allow the minority to have a voice in the laws of their country.
The new taxation powers of the government will take the power from the states. These powers allow the federal government to enforce any tax it desires. This includes taxes that could be detrimental to the state governments. This also takes away the state’s ability to collect tariffs where a majority of the state funding comes from. Brutus 1 discusses that the states will be forced to put a direct taxation on its people to pay off debts owed to the federal government. This will lead to more unnecessary taxes being placed on the people. Overall, this takes a great deal of power from the states as the federal government will overshadow them.
A standing army is not necessary to protect the United States. A standing army would get rid of the integrity that the militias have. The militias have proved many times that they will not stand up and fight for things they know are wrong including Shay’s Rebellion. A standing army would be an aristocratic army where people who had a very high societal status would be calling the shots, while in militias, which is led by normal citizens, will look out for the best interest of the people.
The necessary and proper clause states, "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,” which allows the government to make any laws they feel are necessary. The Bill of Rights is necessary to safeguard the individual rights of a person. The Bill of Rights established many of the individual freedoms granted to the people. Without the Bill of Rights, the necessary and proper clause would allow the government to take the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Religion (Amendment 1) away from the people if they felt it was necessary.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!