The Instigator
andyshinnn
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheElderScroll
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Is the US Constitution a tryannical document?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
TheElderScroll
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,099 times Debate No: 25746
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

andyshinnn

Con

1. Government will prevent factions from gaining control.
2. The national government will protect the rights of the people so well that they will gain support and loyalty. Loyalty will be gained through results.
3. The power of the central government is limited. The Constitution does give more power to the government, but it will be limited to dealing with tasks that face the entire nation. (i.e. trade, currency, and defense)
4. The powers given to the central government are necessary.
5. A national balance of power protects the states.
6. It is better to keep individual rights ambiguous.

Please state arguments that the Constitution is a tyrannical document!
TheElderScroll

Pro

I will be accepting your challenge, and I will be supporting the notion that US constitution is, in a general sense, a tyrannical document.
May both of us enjoy this debate. Please go ahead.
Debate Round No. 1
andyshinnn

Con

1. Government will prevent factions from gaining control.
2. The national government will protect the rights of the people so well that they will gain support and loyalty. Loyalty will be gained through results.
3. The power of the central government is limited. The Constitution does give more power to the government, but it will be limited to dealing with tasks that face the entire nation. (i.e. trade, currency, and defense)
4. The powers given to the central government are necessary.
5. A national balance of power protects the states.
6. It is better to keep individual rights ambiguous.
TheElderScroll

Pro

I thank Con for initialing this debate. Here is my opening statement

Given the fact that The Constitution of The United States of America composes of seven Articles and at least twenty-seven Amendments, it is next to impossible for me to elaborate on each one of them. Besides, my limited understanding of the United States Constitution inevitably refrains me from taking on such a challenged task. In this debate, therefore, I will be primarily focusing on one Article of the Constitution to prove my point. As a layman to the Constitution, my interpretation of it may, sometimes, runs afoul of the understandings usually accepted by the general population and/or the authorities. If it is the case, please be aware that it is not my intention to deliberately mislead con and the audiences. My understanding of the Constitution is entirely based on the news that I have read from several leading newspapers in the past several months. Whether my comprehension of the Constitution comports with the intended meaning of the U.S Constitution is, of course, for con and the audiences to judge.

The Preamble (of the Constitution)
Quote: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Although the preamble does not grand any power to any department of the Federal government, the "U.S. Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution." In this debate, I will be treating the statements of preamble as the intended purpose of the Constitution.

As the Constitution is produced in an inseparable form, the purpose of the U.S. Constitution will be undeniably compromised if any Article in the Constitution is proven to be in conflict of the intended purpose therein. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that if one Article is tyrannical, the entire U.S. Constitution will consequently fall apart. Understandably, it is not entirely warrant to conclude, solely on the basis of that one Article may be proven to be in tyrannical nature, that the entire Constitution is necessarily tyrannical. It is admitted that U.S. Constitution, properly applied, would prove to be beneficial. Therefore, the arguments I marshalled shall not be construed to demonstrate that the entire U.S. Constitution is in a tyrannical nature, rather I will attempt to prove that at least one Article articulated in the Constitution displays a oppressive nature. The proof of "the entire U.S. Constitution is tyrannical document" requires a substantial evidence and a comprehensive understanding of the U.S. Constitution, and it unquestionably ventures into the dominion of experts. Besides, nowhere in con"s statement suggests that it is the case.

Art. I, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause) of the U.S. Constitution will be the central of this argument.

Clause 3: The congress shall have power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several Sates and with the Indian Tribes.

Note: Congress and Federal Government are interchangeable in this argument.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate inter-state Commerce. It has been established, echoed by the recent ruling on Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka. ObamaCare), that Congress has a broad authority under the Commerce Clause. Quote "the power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states," but extends to activities that "have a substantial effect on interstate commerce." Simply put, as long as a particular activity, taken in aggregate with similar activities of others, and providing that the aggregated activities have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress, pursuant to the Commerce Clause, has the authority to regulate it. The definition of commerce, however, is ambiguous, and the definition changes from time to time. Although there is no universal agreement about the usage of "commerce" among scholars, the phrase "economic activity" is frequently used as a equivalent to "commerce" in the purpose of the Constitution. If that is the case, virtually every aspect of human life is subject to the Federal government control. In the case of purchasing a particular item, MacBook for example, people who are willing to pay over $1000 dollars for a new MacBook is undoubtedly constitutes the very definition of economic activity. Transactions have been made to fulfill customers" need. That is no controversial about the group of people who are in the pool of purchasers. But for the people who are not purchasing, or have no intention to purchase a MacBook, they are also participating in economic activity, and their behaviors have a significant impact on interstate commerce as well. Someone"s unwillingness to buy a MacBook is forcing up the price of it in accordance to the law of demand and supply, and people who are purchasing the MacBook is paying the extra costs for the unwillingness. Therefore, taken in aggregate (Imagine how many MacBooks have been sold by Apple across the states), not purchasing a particular item is also a economic activity. Accordingly, Congress has the very authority to regulate the group of people who are unwilling to purchase a MacBook. Based on the same logic, the only conclusion that we can reach is that Congress can control virtually every aspect of human life, from birth to death. Therefore the authority granted by Commerce clause is an obvious violation of the spirits of the Constitution - secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, and it should be renounced as a tyrannical exercise.

Conclusion
U.S. Constitution is a tyrannical document (at least partially).

Thank you.

References
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://edition.cnn.com...
http://articles.cnn.com...
http://www.thedailybeast.com...
Debate Round No. 2
andyshinnn

Con

andyshinnn forfeited this round.
TheElderScroll

Pro

Due to the fact that my oppoent renounced his turn, I will cease participating this debate as well. Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 3
andyshinnn

Con

andyshinnn forfeited this round.
TheElderScroll

Pro

All right...
Debate Round No. 4
andyshinnn

Con

andyshinnn forfeited this round.
TheElderScroll

Pro

All right...forfeited again?
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
andyshinnnTheElderScrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: مصادرة