- 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.
Just because state militias still exist doesn't mean they are not subject to the proposed central government. The central government could still potentially justify an attack on its own people if they believe that the incident is jeopardizing the safety of the country as a whole. In those instances, it is a concern that the government would jump to stealing away liberty instead of using a more nuanced approach.
Is federalism truly democracy? Placing power in the hands of far removed elites becomes impossible rather quickly. As a population grows, representatives will have to appeal to and represent ever growing constituent bodies. In a short matter of time, the same elites that are presented as a way to properly make decisions would turn into an impossible notion as one man can not possibly understand the intricate needs of a populace so different and vast than themselves.
How is a militia system ineffective if we were able to beat the greatest power in the world, Great Britain, under it? Why should the power of the people be placed in the hands of elites when we have already proven our own system to be effective? Especially when those very same elites are far removed from the collective interests and true needs of the people they are protecting.
Sure, an army can be used to defend against invaders. However, a standing army could also be used to attack and take away freedom from citizens. What is there to protect protesters from being wrongfully attacked by their own government if the government also has the power to unite and control the militias? Similar systems have been adopted elsewhere, such as china, and liberties have ended up being smothered under the authority of a central government that believes it knows whats best for its people.
Across history, federal standing armies have not only been utilized in the war times, but also in peace times to quell uprisings and take liberty as needed to maintain order. How may a constitution that derives its principles from a document that promises natural rights support a government that has the power to use an army and gather up militias to suppress the free will of the people? (Brutus)
Clauses such as the supremacy clause place overriding power on courts that are far away and detached from the intricacies of individual state’s livelihoods, and give them the power to effectively negate state courts, rendering them obsolete. In the case of the constitution, ratification could spell a future in which federal courts precede state courts in all matters that they wish, and could potentially “swallow up” all state court power. (Brutus)
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!