When you look at it from afar, it does seem as if the government created by the Constitution is too powerful. However, if you take a closer look at its intricacies you will see why it is not. The most powerful body, the legislature, is controlled by representatives directly elected by constituents. Since this body is the most powerful, it is then split into two parts: the house of representatives and the senate. The House of Representatives is voted directly by the people. The executive branch (the electoral college) appoints the judicial branch. The senate then decides whether or not to approve them. This system is known as "checks and balances" and it is a system where the government controls itself through separation of powers.

In a sense, creating the Constitution IS a form of strengthening the Articles of Confederation. Under the Constitution, there is an elaborate system of checks and balances which forces politicians to control each other. For example, the President would have the power to veto a bill, but if he should unjustly veto something, the legislature can override that veto with a two-thirds vote.

Hi! This is a debate between federalists and anti-federalists about which is better: the constitution of the articles of confederation. What is your opinion? Keep in mind that this debate, the year is 1788.

Under the Constitution, our rights to revolt will be revoked. While there is no blatant clause restricting the citizens from revolting, under this document we will not be able to. Once power is given up by the people, the only way to take it back is by force. The federal legislative is given the power to create armies at peace as well as at war. Our citizen militias will not stand a chance, and will eventually disband altogether. If we cannot form a militia then we cannot rise up against the tyranny that this government creates.

The constitution proposed by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay is blatantly anti-american and would thrust our nation into a state of dictatorship. The biggest issue I have with this constitution is the "necessary and proper" clause. This clause states that the government of the United States may do anything necessary to protect the general welfare of the people. With this clause, anything may be done for the "general welfare" of the people. Our rights will be revoked and we will once again find ourselves subjects of a tyrannical government.

I see where you are coming from, but I feel that you have slightly misinterpreted what I said. I do not believe that racism can be experienced by any one person in our society. I believe that racism can only be experience by marginalized groups in our society. So, there is no such thing as "reverse racism" against white people.

There's a Black Lives Matter protest this Saturday at 5:00 p.m. at Jones Park! Show up and be a part of history, not just watching it (even if its to anti-protest, if that's your jam).

Exactly. Race needs to be expanded on in school, and we need to talk about deeper things than just the most popular ones.

I agree with you. Our society is still largely segregated today. And it isn't just highschool, it is all throughout life. According to a study done by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, three quarters of American adults do not have a close friend of a different race.

We do talk about the "massacre" of Native Americans, but we do not recognize the scale of it. In Germany, the holocaust is openly recognized as a genocide. In America, we say that we "massacred" the Native Americans, which is on a much smaller scale than genocide. There are no major museums to memorialize this, and Americans as a whole do not recognize what they have done. Other countries that have committed genocide recognize this much more, and actively work to show their regret and sorrow.