The states should have significantly more power than the national government.
Debate Rounds (3)
The only powers that the nation should have are the aquiring of wealth(what I described above), military, currency, interstate infrastucture, and settling disputes between states.
The person who accepts this debate will argue against what I have stated and that the nation should have more power than the states.
"The only powers that the nation should have are the aquiring of wealth(what I described above), military, currency, interstate infrastucture, and settling disputes between states."
I disagree. I believe that the national government should also have the power to
- regulate commerce, (which is single handedly the biggest power of Congress since it includes business regulation, environmental regulation, controlling the minimum wage, setting interest rates,
- choose how to collect income (decide what gets taxed and by how much)
- safeguard civil rights (which we know will be a problem in the southern states and the Bible Belt)
- establish courts and enforce penalties for federal crimes
- conduct foreign policy
- make treaties/ trade agreements with foreign nations
- overrule state laws and be the supreme law of the land
- be able to enforce their rules as they see fit
- be able to enforce the collection of revenue from states
The last time the US was organized so that the states had significantly more power then the national government, it was under the Articles of Confederation which were so disastrous that it almost drove the US into chaos and anarchy: http://americanhistory.about.com...
What pro is proposing is nearly identical to the system in place in early America that was so bad it almost destroyed the new nation, so anyone with a brain should know that the states should NOT have significantly more power than the national government because the last time that happened it really f*cking sucked......
The major reasons the Articles failed was:
It was just meant to be a temporary constitution to unite the colonies so that a more permanent constitution would be established-I am not stating that we should create a new constitution, just that the states should have more power, similar to what the tenth amendment states
It did not give the national government the power to levy taxes-my plan is a compromise for this problem. It gives the nation a consistent revenue, while not officially levying taxes. Instead, consider it taxing the states, not the people in the states. In my plan, GA can adopt FairTax, California can adopt Flat Tax, and New York can continue with income tax. All states can get the taxing structure they want, and the nation can just take a desired percentage from the states. The nation gets money, the nation controls the amount it gets, the states control the method of taxation, and the states control what the PEOPLE pay.
It did not establish a national currency-my plan gave this power to the federal government
It did not give the federal government the power to create a military-my plan allows for the establishment of a national military
What you believe the national government should do and my counters:
1. You want the national government to regulate commerce.
In my plan, the states regulate commerce how they see fit. Every region of the country is very unique, thus one regulation would not work well for the nation as a whole. Each state can simply do what works best for it. Remember this: a state's law regarding a regulation can always be changed or adapted if there is a problem that arises from poor state legislation(nothing has to be written in stone)
2. You want the national government to safeguard civil rights, especially for the Bible Belt.
Yes, racism and sexism is bad. I agree. However, how much will civil rights account for? Will safeguarding civil rights include legislation on abortion, gays, guns, etc.. If so, the national government would go too far. Your idea of "safeguarding civil rights" is extremely vague and could end up being taken advantage of and taken out of its original meaning.
3. You want the nation to be able to establish courts and enforce penalties for federal crimes.
At first glance, one would not see a problem with this. However, look a little deeper. What kind of punishments. What if one crime in one state is the death penalty and the same crime in another state is a few years in prison(keep in mind that neither of these punishment will violate the cruel and unusual punishments amendment). What would the penalty be then? Furthermore, what if the nation wants one thing to be illegal and the states want it legal, or vice versa? Why not just let the states handle it? Also, remember that the national government has the power to settle disputes between states(in my original plan), so if a crime takes place across different states and the states can't agree on a punishment, the national government DOES HAVE THE POWER TO STEP IN. It is not like the national government just has to stand by and be powerless as the two states argue.
4. You want the nation to be able to deal with other countries.
I meant to include this in my original plan but I forgot. This could count under the military aspect of my plan. I will agree that this should be a national power.
5. Your really vague ideas...You want the nation to be able to enforce rules and throw out state legislation as they see fit.
So you basically want to give the nation any and all power to rip any state power out of its hands and gather it in the national government. No. I agree that if a state violates the preexisting constitution, it should be handled by the national government. However, the rules cannot change on the states reducing the states laws and legislation.
6. You want the nation to be able to collect revenue from the states.
I specifically gave this power to the national government in my plan for revenue collection. Therefore, both of us agree on this national responsibility.
My idea basically is the perfect plan for making the most people happy. No, not everyone will be happy, but it does ensure the majority is happy which is better than what we currently have going on.
My idea gives more power to the people, which was the original purpose of both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.
"The major reasons the Articles failed was that It was just meant to be a temporary constitution to unite the colonies so that a more permanent constitution would be established"
Yeah thats not true at all...... The Articles of confederation were meant to create a confederacy of states with a very weak central government and keep it that way, but they eventually scrapped it because the national government was way too weak to even function. Hell the Constitution and the A.o.C. are so different on so many levels that its clear that the A.o.C. were never meant to be temporary, otherwise most of it would have been preserved in the new Constitution, which didnt happen. in fact the Constitution is just about the complete opposite of what the Articles of Confederation was meant to do.
" Instead, consider it taxing the states, not the people in the states. In my plan, GA can adopt FairTax, California can adopt Flat Tax, and New York can continue with income tax"
And you really dont see how that can be a problem? The national government tax is the moderate, middle-of-the-road plan to collecting revenue whereas if the states were free to levy their own taxes on income you would see states with 90% taxes on the rich and others that take 60% from the very poor while the rich keep 10%.....
"the states control what the PEOPLE pay."
No it doesnt, your plan is just a poorly disguised effort to let the states determine WHICH people pay. If states could tax income however they want then every state in the south would tax the middle class and the poor more then the rich while in other states the exact opposite would happen.
"It did not establish a national currency-my plan gave this power to the federal government"
Yes but you left out the power of controlling how much money gets printed to the states, and it would only take one state to completely screw something up (printing way too much of it or devaluing it) for it to negatively affect the other 49 states....
"In my plan, the states regulate commerce how they see fit"
But nobody would give a sh*t what all the other states choose to regulate! if Nevada dumps toxic waste into rivers that flow through California, and California wants Nevada to stop dumping toxic waste into the rivers, Nevada isnt obligated to give a sh*t about what California wants even though their actions affect them.
When regulating commerce, all the states involved have to agree on the regulations in order for the regulation to be established... But in your plan it only takes one state to shoot down the regulation from passing, no other states have to abide by the regulation even though their actions affect those states, and nobody can impose regulations on another state even if they are all being negatively affected by what that state does
Your plan doesnt let states regulate commerce, your plan flat out eliminates it
"Yes, racism and sexism is bad. I agree. However, how much will civil rights account for? "
Judging from the South's elaborate history of racism, A LOT.
"Will safeguarding civil rights include legislation on abortion, gays, guns, etc.. If so, the national government would go too far."
So when the governemnt safeguards civil rights you dont like, then in your opinion the government has gone too far.....
(And people wonder why the South is so f***ed up)
"Your idea of "safeguarding civil rights" is extremely vague and could end up being taken advantage of and taken out of its original meaning."
And your idea of safeguarding civil rights allows states to decide what is or isnt a civil right, which means that retarded states could decide that blacks cant marry whites, or blacks should be able to vote, or that democrats only count as 3/5ths of a person, or make it legal to hunt mexicans by saying they arent people, simply because the states could decide what is or isnt a civil right......
Seeing as how some states are too stupid to realize what is or isnt a civil right, leaving civil rights to the states would only result in a tremendous scaling back of rights that would disenfranchise a very large part of the population.
"What if one crime in one state is the death penalty and the same crime in another state is a few years in prison. What would the penalty be then?"
Whichever state the crime was committed in gets to decide dingus, thats how it works.
"what if the nation wants one thing to be illegal and the states want it legal, or vice versa?"
No genius thats not what im saying. The argument is that the government should be able to MAKE courts, not determine what is or isnt legal..... In the system we have right now the government already allows states some, SOME, leeway in deciding what is or isnt legal.
"Why not just let the states handle it?"
Can you at least try to act like you understood my argument?
"I meant to include this (conduct foreign policy) in my original plan but I forgot."
"You want the nation to be able to enforce rules and throw out state legislation as they see fit."
Yeah...... If California passes a law that allows discarded fetuses to be sold to restaurants as food, then the government should be able to step in and shut that down, unless your pro-aborted-fetus-consumption.....
"So you basically want to give the nation any and all power to rip any state power out of its hands and gather it in the national government."
My God you really cannot read..... Theres a huge difference between a state POWER and a state LAW, I only advocate the government being able to step in and overturn terrible state LAWS as they see fit, not state POWERS.
"You want the nation to be able to collect revenue from the states. I specifically gave this power to the national government in my plan for revenue collection. Therefore, both of us agree on this national responsibility."
Thats not what I said idiot, theres no way for the government to ENFORCE the collection of revenue from the states, which is what I was saying. Your plan makes paying taxes to the government seem voluntary. If a couple of hick states in the south simply decide to not pay the government all of the money it requests since your plan doesnt say the states HAVE to obey the governments requests (very likely) then theres no way for the government to enforce the collection of taxes....... And even if you do make it mandatory to abide by the government and pay what they ask, that still doesnt stop states from deciding not to pay because what will the governmetn do about it?
"My idea basically is the perfect plan for making the most people happy. No, not everyone will be happy, but it does ensure the majority is happy"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, good one.
Under your plan states would be able to deny all sorts of current rights to blacks, mexicans, asians, old people, young people, women, gays and lesbians, the poor, immigrants, and thats just the conservative states..... The majority of Americans dont consist entirely of middle aged straight white men like you think it does, and middle aged straight white men are the only ones who would be unaffected by the new change.
Your plan makes only a minority happy, YOUR minoirty. Retarded racist white men.
"My idea gives more power to the people"
It really doesnt. Your sh*tty idea gives more power to the states to rule over the people in their state as they see fit, not to the people themselves. Your idea gets rid of one big government and instead makes 50 slightly smaller big governments that have no checks or balances on anything they decide to do.
2. (this merges your second and third points) Who said that the states can choose WHO to tax? The states can only choose HOW to tax. The states will be able to choose the method and the percentage. States can choose to have a progressive method if they wished. Yes, I suppose you could argue that this choosing WHO, but this is still no different than how it currently is.
3. I said simply that the currency is a responsibility left to the central government. This means ALL aspects of currency.
4. Your only issue with this point is that it may interfere with other states. This would cause an interstate dispute, which is settled by the central government.
5. You seem to assume that racism will continue in the south becasue of what happened fifty years ago. If the state decides on something, that means the majority supports something. The majority will NOT support racism. The majority will NOT support the violation of civil rights.
6. If the state supports a right, then give them the right. If not, don't. The federal government should not decide what is a right and what is not.
7. Maybe my system may be taken advantage of, but your idea will definitely be taken advantage of. In the US, civil rights are given more than they are taken away; I believe that you will not have to worry about violations of civil rights anyway. However, your plan would almost definitely ensure that civil rights will be taken away on the whim of the federal government.
8. But what if the same person commits the same crime in two different states? The federal government can break the tie. The state still gets to choose the punishment.
9. If the state makes the laws, then they should enforce them and make the courts to try the criminals. If you go to a federal court, they would be trying to prosecute a person on a law that isn't even existent in the federal government, thus, the person would be found innocent most likely.
10. Why would a state pass a law unless the majority of the state supports it? Your arguments are all extreme and irrational.
11. And what if the fed decides that the state law saying that gun ownership is permitted should be overturned? States are not some corrupt senseless bodies like you think they are. They are smaller sections of the country that more closely address the issues of the people in the state than can the nation.
12. I stated that the government has the power to collect revenue from the state. This implys enforcement.
13. I will leave the issue of who is happier to the voters.
14. The people are in the states aren't they? The people elect the government officials who represent their views. The states also share the same basic system of the national government, so checks and balances will definitely be present.
15. A state has a continuous climate, geography, and economy. A state can more closely address the economic issues than the nation. In many cases, the nation may pass a law that helps New York but disadvantages Texas. In my plan, both can pass laws that benefit them.
Vote for me!
" The Articles simply unified the states since it would take all the states support in order to ratify the Articles. "
The argument was that they were meant to be a temporary transition from former colonies to a more centralized and united country... This argument has been dropped by pro.
"Yes, I suppose you could argue that this choosing WHO, but this is still no different than how it currently is."
Except the way it is right now is the moderate, middle-of-the-road method whereas letting the states do whatever the hell they want will completely change all of that. States could tax the poor to death or the rich to death or the middle class to death more then they do under the current system
" I said simply that the currency is a responsibility left to the central government. This means ALL aspects of currency."
Your plan doesnt specify that and clearly leaned towards the US only having a national currency, not over who printed it or not. If your plan is too vague to understand then that means it sucks that much more.
"Your only issue with this point is that it may interfere with other states. This would cause an interstate dispute, which is settled by the central government."
But your original plan clearly stated that the regulation of commerce is a power left to the STATES, not the national government, so youre argument fails and concedes a glaring problem with your plan
" If the state decides on something, that means the majority supports something. The majority will NOT support racism. The majority will NOT support the violation of civil rights."
A majority of f*cked up southern states DO support violating civil rights, the last few years alone southern states have vehemently opposed gay rights, illegal immigrants rights, voter rights (via ridiculous ID laws), women's rights (birth control and abortion), and a whole list of other things.
The states cannot be left in charge of managing civil rights because it would just lead to a bunch of retarded conservative states to run wild and rebuild the segregated jim-crow law society of the 1920's.
"However, your plan would almost definitely ensure that civil rights will be taken away on the whim of the federal government."
The federal government doesnt take away civil rights you retard, it gives them to people.... Every Supreme Court Case on civil rights for the last 60 years started out with an individual STATE denying a civil right and then the government had to step in and decided it was indeed a civil right.
Once again he drops that his plan would allow the states to take away civil rights on a whim, and so the argument is conceded by the pro.
" If you go to a federal court, they would be trying to prosecute a person on a law that isn't even existent in the federal government, thus, the person would be found innocent most likely."
You have no idea how the federal governmetn works, that is clear to me now.
"And what if the fed decides that the state law saying that gun ownership is permitted should be overturned? "
Because that would be unconstitutional you dipsh*t....
" I stated that the government has the power to collect revenue from the state. This implys enforcement."
Except it doesnt, again. Your vague plan does NOT specify ANY means of enforcement, which means that paying all or even some of what the government demands is once again optional, which will lead to the same problem the Articles of Confederation had.
"The states also share the same basic system of the national government, so checks and balances will definitely be present."
If you actually could understand what your plan proposes then you would realize that the states would definitely NOT share the same basic system and therfore there would be NO checks and balances.
" In many cases, the nation may pass a law that helps New York but disadvantages Texas. In my plan, both can pass laws that benefit them"
That doesnt fix the problem that one state's laws could negatively impact the 49 other states though you idiot, so the problem remains unsolved.
Reasons why Pro's plan is as retarded as pro himself:
1) States can run wild in deciding who gets taxed and by how much which could cause the rich, the poor, or the middle class to be taxed to death while others walk off scott free of paying anything
2) The plan is extremely vague on what the government actually gets to do, and if the states get 'Significantly' more power then the government, then the power of regulating commerce and printing money goes to the states which can only end disastrously
3) Pro's plan allows for the blatant abuse of civil rights of blacks, gays, immigrants, old people, young people, etc that pro denies wont happen because he's too retarded to realize it will.
4) Pro's plan does not allow the government to establish courts
5) Pro's plan allows states to pass wildly ridiculous laws that cannot be overturned. If California made a law that allowed for aborted fetuses to be sold as food, nobody can step in and overturn that law.
6) Pro's plan actually grants so many powers to the national government (conduct foreign policy, establish a military, collect taxes, funding interstate infrastructure, and the vague power of solving interstate problems which could give the national government a mosnterous amount of power), that it does not make the states significantly more powerful. Pro's idea of what the government should control defeats his own resolution that the states should have 'significantly' more power then the national government since he feels the national government should have so many powers in the first place.
7) Pro's plan does not allow for the national government to regulate commerce, which means the states would be free to pass any and all laws that benefit them that negatively affects the other 49 states, which essentially means that in his plan there would be NO regulation of commerce, especially that between states
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||3|
Reasons for voting decision: My opinion wasn't swayed by Pro, although it was an interesting question to think about. Conduct is tied, because both Pro and Con sniped at each other. Spelling and grammar were fine. Con used a lot more arguments which were far more convincing; Pro just erected straw men and repetitive debating. However, sources to Pro as he used more; all sources were reliable.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate