Reconsidering the Anti-Federalists Concerns

Me ^ | 07/15/2024 | Rob Floyd

[Frapster]

Time to Revisit the Anti-Federalists

We live in a time where the federal government’s reach seems to extend into every aspect of our lives. From the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause to the extensive surveillance programs justified by national security, the concerns raised by the Anti-Federalists over 200 years ago appear more relevant than ever. Maybe it’s time we revisit what they had to say.

What Were They Worried About?

The Anti-Federalists were a group of early American thinkers and politicians who opposed the ratification of the Constitution as it was originally proposed. They worried that a strong central government would become tyrannical and infringe upon the rights and freedoms of the people and the states. They feared a powerful executive, an overreaching judiciary, and a legislature that would ignore the will of the common citizen. Their solution? Stronger state governments and a Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties.

Expansive Federal Powers

[FLT-bird]

Patrick Henry in particular pointed out that there was no limit to the public welfare clause....that some could use it to bilk taxpayers to pay for just about anything. He was especially concerned about New England states leeching off of the wealthier Southern States.

Obviously he was 100% correct.

Another issue the Anti Federalists brought up (in addition to the lack of a bill of rights) was the lack of any limit on the government’s ability to borrow money. Again, they were right about that.

[central_va]

Secession is the utltimate exression of anti-federalism.

[Herakles]

The civil war was fight between Federal Rights and states rights Federal Rights won and now we see what the results are

[Rockingham]

Oh, here we go, an invitation to put on bow ties and tweed jackets and debate as Federalist versus Anti-Federalist. I get the love of history, especially American history. Really though, does it make sense to urge that "the concerns raised by the Anti-Federalists over 200 years ago appear more relevant than ever."

We can easily see where that logic goes, with Anti-Federalists secure in their bunker firing salvos at Federalists based on today's excesses of the federal government. A losing political dissent though from nearly two hundred and fifty years ago is not an alternative for today. No one but no one will be drawn to the conservative cause by such a display, nor does it help us toward solutions for today's woes.

[i_robot73]

>
there was no limit to the public welfare clause....that some could use it to bilk taxpayers to pay for just about anything.
>

You mean aside from A1S8, 5th, & later 13th A.?? Same for the ‘borrowing’ side of things.

The ability to ‘borrow’ doesn’t answer the question of “What FOR (what authority)??”

Course GOVT, esp. the blacked-robed tyrants never pontificate on that follow-up query; even though we ALL (should) know the Constitution LIMITS govt & is a contract of NEGATIVE powers (IE: 1 ‘hit’ == NO go).

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

— Lysander Spooner

[i_robot73]

>
The civil war was fight between Federal Rights and states rights Federal Rights won and now we see what the results are
>

Odd, I see no Amendments post- that would negate A1S8, 5th, 9th, 10th, 13th or 14th A, limitations. In fact, the 13th & 14th A. should have SOLIDIFIED a Const. limited govt in size/scope (Govt can’t take from one to ‘give’ to another [theft & involuntary servitude, if not slavery], least of all for those of govt’s choosing [Equal of/Under the Law])

[Frapster]

Why not? They did it then, we can do it now. This moment is ripe for these kinds of discussions and gets to the heart of draining the swamp. Or at least speaks to it.

[Frapster]

Just as totalitarianism is the ultimate expression of Federalism. But I don’t think this is a question of choosing your poison - it’s a question about swinging the pendulum in another direction.

[Rockingham]

Questions over the division between central and distributed power in government and the limitations on central power are enduring. To be relevant today though, the discussion must be conducted in reference to those issues as we understand them today, not as they were long ago.

You would not want to be treated based on the medical science and ideas of 1787. Why would one attempt to address constitutional issues today in the terms in which they were discussed when the Constitution was drafted, debated, and ratified?

Indeed, Madison's Notes, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers and other sources of that era are remarkable for the range of historical and contemporary knowledge they invoked. Federalist and Anti-Federalist alike of the founding era would be astonished if we ignored what had happened since then, especially our long history under the Constitution and the issues we face today.

[Jacquerie]

VA appointed Patrick Henry to attend the Federal Convention.

He couldn’t make it.

Tough.

[Jacquerie]

So why did the Constitutional Convention reject the federal New Jersey Plan of government?

[Jacquerie]

At the Virginia Ratification Convention, beginning with “We the People,” Patrick Henry opposed every subsequent clause of the Constitution.