- 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.
I'm pretty sure the claim was that the executive isn't polarized and you have nothing disputing that. Congress is set up in a way that they are meant to disagree while the president is one person, so unless he has multiple personality disorder I don't think he'll disagree with himself. Also your statement that the president "team" is irrelevant seems completely made up.
There are limitations to the Elastic Clause. It doesn't just give Congress free rein to make laws. It actually has to be necessary and proper and if it's not, the judiciary has the power of judicial review which was established Marbury v. Madison. The president also has a similar power in his ability to make and remove Executive Orders that don't have to be checked by Congress.
Once again the president is still choosing the nominees. You bring up the Brett Kavanaugh case, but if you do recall he is currently an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court! Also rejecting 3 nominations is not something that strengthens your argument. That's 3 out of at least 100 nominations which shows how unlikely it is for Congress to reject a nomination.
The president still has to check all the taxes congress lays and collects. And you say "congress can fund things to their liking"? I'm pretty sure congress funds things for the benefit of the country and their constituents, not because they like what they're funding. Also say congress funds something they "like", the president can veto this and it is very difficult to override a veto as we all know.
The Congress is ratifying a treaty made by the president. Doesn't put power in the hands of the executive since the legislative branch is only approving? Even if congress doesn't ratify a treaty, the president can make and executive agreement without approval of congress as long as it is constitutional. The ability of the executive to act quickly without having to go through congress give the president great power of congress!
The president’s veto power gives the executive immense power over the legislative branch. A bill can be approved by both chambers in congress and by not signing it, the president can stop the bill from becoming a law. Although Congress can override a veto, it is very difficult to get ⅔ of both chambers to vote to override the veto. For example, Trump vetoed a bill passed by congress that would have countered Trump’s declaration of funding the wall as a national emergency.
The executive is more powerful than legislation because of the president’s power to make executive orders. Although executive orders aren’t written in the constitution, it is an implied power from Article 2. With this power, the president can make order which is similar to a law without having the check of congress, allowing him to work faster than congress. The president also has more power in his ability to reverse an executive order without review.
They can "place/collect unfair taxes on whatever they please"? Where did you read this? There are limitations as to what they can tax. Clause 4 states: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." The government definitely doesn’t have free range. They also need to gain the trust of the citizens, so unnecessary taxes wouldn't be practical. These new taxing powers are crucial to government funding because states used to have a choice about giving the government money. A government needs money in order to function.
You say "Congress has only the powers listed in the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8." This may be true, but there are ways to get powers outside of those listed. For instance, what if the Congress says something is necessary and proper but it violates our unlisted rights? Because of the Necessary and Proper Clause they are aloud to do this. However, if we had these rights listed in The Bill of Rights they couldn't even if it was "necessary and proper."
You're saying that a standing army is needed for "protection form outside powers." Wouldn't you consider our militias defeated the British troops in the American Revolution protecting outside powers? If our militias are capable of getting the job done themselves, there is no need to add a standing army. You also said that the will "help enforce the laws to help domestic issues." What if for instance, they are told to go enforce a law they don't agree with and refuse. Then you go to the standing armies. Do you want people to fear our government?
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!