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.
>
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
VA appointed Patrick Henry to attend the Federal Convention.
He couldn’t make it.
Tough.
At the Virginia Ratification Convention, beginning with “We the People,” Patrick Henry opposed every subsequent clause of the Constitution.