The anti-federalists’ main objection to ratifying the constitution was that it
|
Antifederalists argued that in a state of nature people were entirely free. In society some rights were yielded for the common good. But, there were some rights so fundamental that to give them up would be contrary to the common good. These rights, which should always be retained by the people, needed to be explicitly stated in a bill of rights that would clearly define the limits of government. A bill of rights would serve as a fire bell for the people, enabling them to immediately know when their rights were threatened. Show Additionally, some Antifederalists argued that the protections of a bill of rights was especially important under the Constitution, which was an original compact with the people. State bills of rights offered no protection from oppressive acts of the federal government because the Constitution, treaties and laws made in pursuance of the Constitution were declared to be the supreme law of the land. Antifederalists argued that a bill of rights was necessary because, the supremacy clause in combination with the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses would allow implied powers that could endanger rights. Federalists rejected the proposition that a bill of rights was needed. They made a clear distinction between the state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. Using the language of social compact, Federalists asserted that when the people formed their state constitutions, they delegated to the state all rights and powers which were not explicitly reserved to the people. The state governments had broad authority to regulate even personal and private matters. But in the U.S. Constitution, the people or the states retained all rights and powers that were not positively granted to the federal government. In short, everything not given was reserved. The U.S. government only had strictly delegated powers, limited to the general interests of the nation. Consequently, a bill of rights was not necessary and was perhaps a dangerous proposition. It was unnecessary because the new federal government could in no way endanger the freedoms of the press or religion since it was not granted any authority to regulate either. It was dangerous because any listing of rights could potentially be interpreted as exhaustive. Rights omitted could be considered as not retained. Finally, Federalists believed that bills of rights in history had been nothing more than paper protections, useless when they were most needed. In times of crisis they had been and would continue to be overridden. The people’s rights are best secured not by bills of rights, but by auxiliary precautions: the division and separation of powers, bicameralism, and a representative form of government in which officeholders were responsible to the people, derive their power from the people, and would themselves suffer from the loss of basic rights. After a long, hot summer deliberating on the Constitution, the delegates to the Convention returned to their home states in late September of 1787 knowing that their work was unfinished. The Constitution was written and signed, but its ratification by the people was far from certain. As specified in Article VII of the Constitution, two-thirds, (or nine of the then-thirteen states) would have to ratify the Constitution before it could go into effect in those states. And in many of those states, the document was met with increasing skepticism: Had the Convention exceeded its mandate to revise the Articles? Why had the Convention been conducted in secret? The delegates would have to reasonably convince their fellow Americans that the Constitution represented the best way forward for the new nation.  The U.S. Constitution Many of the debates about the proper scope of government power that had gone on inside Independence Hall continued on in the states. Those who argued that the Constitution should be ratified became known as Federalists. Not surprisingly, most of the people who had helped write the Constitution were Federalists. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay together wrote a collection of 85 essays that were published in newspapers of the day, arguing for the ratification of the Constitution. These essays became known as The Federalist Papers (1787-1788),and are still today referenced as the most authoritative source (along with Madison’s Notes of the Federal Convention) on the meaning of the Constitution. People who opposed the Constitution were known as Anti-Federalists. Their objections were wide and varied. They pointed to the national government’s power to tax and its supremacy over state law as other signs of danger. One point of major concern was the “necessary and proper” clause. This clause in Article I, Section 8, which came at the end of the list of Congress’s powers, gave Congress the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof”. The Anti-Federalists worried that Congressmen would see this clause as an additional grant of power, rather than a means to carry out the enumerated powers in Article I. Today this clause is sometimes referred to as the “elastic clause” (a term which would probably have caused the Anti-Federalists to say “I told you so!”) because some do in fact take it to mean Congress can “stretch” its powers to have more control over the states and the people. The Federalist, essays written in support of the Constitution Alexander Hamilton defended the clause in Federalist No. 33, asserting that the grant of power to make laws necessary and proper to carry out its listed powers was simply empowering Congress to actually bring about the ends it had been granted the power to accomplish. He asked rhetorically,
In Federalist No. 44, James Madison noted that the Necessary and Proper Clause had been “assailed” more than almost any other. He defended it on the grounds that it was the best option available, and if lawmakers abused it, it was subject to the same safeguards built into the Constitution that checked Congress’s power. If Congress went outside the bounds of the power delegated to it, the executive and judicial branches would provide checks against it, and of course the people could vote out bad Congressmen:
But Hamilton’s and Madison’s arguments were not convincing to Patrick Henry. The old republican Henry had “smelt a rat” and therefore declined to attend the Convention. The great orator who a decade earlier had rallied his fellow Virginians against the British crying “Give me liberty, or give me death!” this time put his great speaking skills to work against the new plan of government. He was suspicious of the Constitution for many reasons. For one thing, it began, “We the people,” rather than with a list of the states, as the Articles of Confederation had. Henry asserted that this meant the national government was now over all the people. What, then, would become of the states? Henry was utterly convinced that the plan of government he saw in the Constitution would lead to a “consolidated” government, or one that would overpower all the states. He warned,
His fellow Virginian George Mason was equally opposed to the Constitution. Mason had attended the Convention but, in the end, refused to sign his name to the document because he believed the rights of the people were not safe. He had many objections to the document, and one was that it lacked a bill of rights. George Mason, one of three delegates who refused to sign the Constitution. He and Elbridge Gerry had called for a bill of rights to be included in the document at the Convention. They pointed out that since the Constitution was supreme over state law, state bills of rights were no security. Their appeals were rejected, however, and the Constitution did not include a bill of rights. The Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, and the stage was set for a debate on the merits of the Constitution, including the need for a bill of rights. Perhaps the most important and radical thing about the ratification debate is that it was a debate. It was a national conversation in which the engagement centered on persuasion and reasonable negotiation, not force. Save to My LibraryShare Related Content
The Ratification Debate11 Activities·80 Min After the Constitution was completed and signed by 39 delegates on September 17, 1787, many of the debates from Independence Hall continued in the debates over ratification in the states. For the Constitution to go into effect, at least nine states would have to ratify (or agree to adopt) it. A party division arose: Federalists argued in favor of ratification, Anti-Federalists against. Leading Federalists James Madison and Alexander Hamilton made a case for ratification in the Federalist Papers. Leading Anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry and George Mason. Mason had attended the Convention but refused to sign the final document, arguing that the central government created by the Constitution would be a threat to liberty and would take away power from the individual states. What was the main objection of the AntiPeople opposed to the ratification of the Constitution were called the Anti-Federalists. They were concerned that the Constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments.
What was the main argument of the AntiThe Anti-Federalists argued that the new Constitution would destroy the liberties won in the American Revolution. They believed the new Constitution would create a national government so powerful that it would ignore the rights of the states.
What were 4 main reasons the AntiTop 5 Reasons Why Anti-Federalists Opposed the Constitution.. There was no list of the people's rights.. The national government was given too much power.. The country was too big for the people to be represented by one national government.. What were two main objections of the anti federalist?In the ratification debate, the Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights.
|
