- 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.
While I would agree that the President having executive privilege does give him power in the sense that he does not have to tell the public information, I would be willing to argue that this power takes trust away from the public. The people always want to be in the know and feel like there is a connection between them and the government, similar to that stated in the Declaration of Independence, and executive privilege takes away from that connection. As well as for executive orders, they are good in a particular moment for a given situation, but they can also be undone at any given moment by another President to come. The only thing that would make an executive order permanent is if it were passed as a law, which can only happen through the approval of Congress. The President does have the power to control the army, but in a dire situation he can only send them to war for 60 days without Congress intervening, and if they do they can be sent home according to the War Powers Resolution. As well as this, only Congress can declare war.
While I will agree that it CAN be difficult to override a President's veto due to Congress' gridlock, I would also state that the gridlock is a check that the founding fathers put on Congress so they cannot over power. As well as the President passing executive orders, this may be true; however, the orders are not permanent and can be undone by any future President at any given moment. The only thing that can make something like an order permanent is if it were to be placed in law, which can only be done through the approval of Congress.
While this may be true, a portion of the process of impeachment is ridding the president from office so therefore it can fall under the general term of impeachment, as we often use it. As well as the gridlock, it is no lie that Congress is gridlocked; however, that is how the founding fathers designed it in the Constitution so there will always be a check, ridding the issue of a possible overpower.
Congress is more powerful than the President because they have the power to make laws. Article 1, section 8 states Congress’ enumerated powers to make laws. Although the President does have the power to veto a law, Congress can override that veto. If Congress does override a veto, it skips over the President and goes straight into law, thus making the President irrelevant in this position. We see this in Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution where it refers to how if it passes enough in the Senate and house, to shall be made into a law.
Congress is more powerful than the President because they have the power to impeach him. An impeachment is the action of calling a president into question and possibly ridding them from the position of President of the United States. If the President steps out of line or out of moral, he can go to trial and Congress can decide whether to impeach him or not. Article 1 section 2 of the Constitution talks about how part of the sole purpose of the House of Representatives is to impeach the President. This shows Congress’ power they have over the President. President Trump’s Impeachment is an example of how impeachment is still something that is a common threat from Congress to the President.
Congress is more powerful than the President because the President leans on Congress for important policies. As an example, budgeting applies to the entire federal government. It provides the set amount that each branch and committee is able to spend, thus making it very important. The President alone cannot pass the budget without the approval of Congress. Congress having the power to approve and pass the budget makes it more powerful than the President. Along with budgeting, congress also has to approve who the president wants to appoint to the government. This acts as a check on the president and furthers Congress’ power. In addition to budgeting and appointees, Congress must also approve the President’s treaties. While the President does have the power to introduce treaties and executive agreements, they do not have as much power as treaties do. Congress has more power because they are what makes treaties permanent. With only an executive agreement, it can be taken away. These powers make Congress more powerful than the President.
Yes, a standing army may be able to protect against outside invaders; however, they may harm us more than help us. With a standing army our independence is at risk. Brutus states that "standing armies are kept up to execute the commands of the prince of magistrate, and are employed for this purpose when occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty." Standing armies are to be kept where there is a king, where there is someone in charge. If we have a standing army, the people begin to lose freedom and the government would evolve into less and less of a democracy. Here in America, the people are in charge. The government relies on its support from the people. With this in mind, Militias are clearly the better option. Militias allow for the people to have an even closer knit relationship with the government than we already have, as well as protecting our rights and keeping the people safe.
Daniel Shays was NOT rebelling against state taxes as a whole, he was rebelling against an absurd amount of taxes and the way they were being enforced. In this time, the repayment of credit or loans was to be paid back in hard currency, which was in a shortage at the time and most people did not have. Shays was on the side of the people that were poor and depressed and had no money. The absurd taxes would lead to loss of their farms or even imprisonment, leading to more debt and more taxes and more criminal activity, thus leading to more trials and more debt, which a state court would better be able to defend than a federal court because they have a better understanding of the situation.
The states wanted a strong democracy and to be able to have their needs heard, understood, and taken into consideration. This will form majority factions and they can be bad, but they are fully necessary because we have to have popular government in order for the people's will to be the basis of government (popular sovereignty). Majority factions are just groups saying they want what most people want.
Madison acknowledged the importance of popular sovereignty in Federalist 10 when he said, "...to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed." But then he turned around and violated the principle, thus going back to majority factions. He created a government that will result in the other evil he mentioned: minority faction rule.
The federal courts “jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes...and it extends to all causes in law and equity arising under the constitution” (Brutus 4). Under the Constitution, we the states have the right to have at least one court in each state. Today we have over 90 local and state courts across the United States. In these local courts, our needs are able to be met and it gives us fair trials. If we had not had this the results of Shays Rebellion would be dramatically different. In Shays Rebellion, the state court was able to give a fair trial rather than having a farmer hung for defending his natural and inalienable rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence. As Anti-Federalists we believe these rights must be protected and the federal courts do not support this belief.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!