To Federalists, we faced impending anarchy, guaranteed to be followed by dissolution or tyranny under the Articles of Confederation. From these near term threats, the Constitution saved us.
To Antis, the Constitution guaranteed near term tyranny.
I think history proved the Federalists correct.
As for our present post-constitutional America, Ben Franklin predicted our Constitution would work well enough for a period of years, but the people would eventually become so corrupted that we would be suited only for despotic government.
A nation can only send so many Sheila Jackson-Lees and Dick Durbins to Congress before it has a detrimental effect. We have only ourselves as a people to blame for the condition of our liberties.
"A Republic . . . if you can keep it."
A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy -- A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.*
[Note *: * The lady here alluded to was Mrs. Powel of Philada.]
. . . . . Farrand’s Records, Vol III, pg 85
“To Antis, the Constitution guaranteed near term tyranny.”
Okay, so it didn’t come immediately. Depending upon what you think of the Bank of America, the Louisiana Purchase, the Jackson administration, etc., I think it’s fair to say it held out for 70 years at least. Maybe you wanna be generous and push it back. Fine, I can make arguments for 1898, 1913, 1917, 1932, 1941, 1947, and so on. Maybe it held out all the way until the present day. Whatever, the point is eventually it was superceded without being replaced as we did with the Articles of Confederation. It is a facade covering another sort of government, and that’s what the antis meant when they said, “I smell a rat!”