Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The original Constitution held against the onslaught until it was sabotaged by a combination of Supreme Court interpretation and the 14th Amendment. It took that much (actually unratified and fraudulent) power to cobble together an effective neutralization of the Constitution, and even then, and after a hundred years of twisting and lying, the entirety of the fraud still hangs on the single thread of "presumption."
The Founders knew the evil they were up against, and warned that the Constitution of Negative Rights would have to be deeply understood in order to be adequately defended. Which is why the Left has invaded academia, to destroy the education necessary for a free people to be able to defend their freedom. But taken at face value, the original Constitution is still a monstrously strong bulwark against tyranny, and has not been defeated - only buried by lies and forceably ignored by a deviously sabotaged ignorant citizenry.
None of which matters in the least, because the perversion DID happen. The previous poster is correct---the Anti-Federalists WERE right, and in such detail that the accuracy of the predictions are frightening.
The Supreme Court that THEY created. When I consider that the first "sabotage" by the Supreme Court took place in 1803, and was authored by one of the framers--John Marshall--I have difficulty writing it off as a mulligan.
The Founders knew the evil they were up against, and warned that the Constitution of Negative Rights would have to be deeply understood in order to be adequately defended.
You have to step outside of it for a minute. Seriously. I realize this is just an intellectual exercise at this point, but what is at issue in my mind is, why create a strong national government? What the framers were "up against" was the Frankenstein monster THEY CREATED.
They weren't even authorized to create it. They were supposed to merely fix the Articles of Confederation. There was no need for what they created. They went too far.
Every defender of the Constitution I encounter acknowledges it hasn't worked, but comes back with some form of what I'll call the Scooby Doo defense--it would have worked if it hadn't been for....the people?
No. You can't say a gubmint designed to be run by people was fine except for the people. They created too powerful a government. They made awful errors that were known at the time! Interstate commerce, necessary and proper, general welfare, etc. The opponents of the Constitution warned of the folly and absolute power that would stem from those phrases. It's not as if it was unknown at the time.