Antifederalist #3: NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Step back and imagine if we actually had followed the Constitution, and held fast to the idea of a LIMITED national government.

We had a limited national government when the United States was a confederacy. They screwed the pooch when they created a national government that was a complete and supreme entity. So many predictable invitations to power and expansion--The preamble, with its broad, general goals, the implied powers of the "necessary and proper" clause, the shockingly powerful and final Supreme Court that would decide the meaning of the Constitution, the total dilution and smothering of state sovereighty--it's all in the Constitution. Odd, isn't it, that the actual federalists are known as the antifederalists, and the nationalists are known as the federalists? Providence has a sense of humor.

Step back and imagine if we actually had followed the Constitution, and held fast to the idea of a LIMITED national government.

I might say a limited national government is sorta like being slightly pregnant. I might also say wouldn't it be nice if rivers were made of chocolate and bottles of jack daniels grew on trees. You should read Antifederalist 49:

People once possessed of power are always loathe to part with it; and we shall never find two thirds of a Congress voting or proposing anything which shall derogate from their own authority and importance, or agreeing to give back to the people any part of those privileges which they have once parted with-so far from it, that the greater occasion there may be for a reformation, the less likelihood will there be of accomplishing it. The greater the abuse of power, the more obstinately is it always persisted in. As to any expectation of two thirds of the legislatures concurring in such a request, it is if possible still more remote. The legislatures of the states will be but forms and shadows, and it will be the height of arrogance and presumption in them, to turn their thoughts to such high subjects.

Antifederalist 45 is haunting:

From this contrast it appears that the general government, when completely organized, will absorb all those powers of the state which the framers of its constitution had declared should be only exercised by the representatives of the people of the state; that the burdens and expense of supporting a state establishment will be perpetuated; but its operations to ensure or contribute to any essential measures promotive of the happiness of the people may be totally prostrated, the general government arrogating to itself the right of interfering in the most minute objects of internal police, and the most trifling domestic concerns of every state, by possessing a power of passing laws "to provide for the general welfare of the United States," which may affect life, liberty and property in every modification they may think expedient, unchecked by cautionary reservations, and unrestrained by a declaration of any of those rights which the wisdom and prudence of America in the year 1776 held ought to be at all events protected from violation.
In a word, the new constitution will prove finally to dissolve all the power of the several state legislatures, and destroy the rights and liberties of the people; for the power of the first will be all in all, and of the latter a mere shadow and form without substance, and if adopted we may (in imitation of the Carthagenians) say, Delenda vit America.

"The key phrase is "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." Who decides what that means? The Supreme Court. The federal beast decides for itself. And as we know, the "general welfare" clause, the implied powers of the necessary and proper clause, the various and ever growing "commerce clause" power give the fedzilla almost unlimited scope. And all that was teed up and in place at ratification."

The POTENTIAL for problems was definitely there, which is why I agree that the Constitution failed in its purpose. But a Supreme Court decision or two could have derailed the whole thing (proper interpretation of the "commerce clause" for instance). But I do not see the result as having been inevitable by any means.

But a Supreme Court decision or two could have derailed the whole thing (proper interpretation of the "commerce clause" for instance). But I do not see the result as having been inevitable by any means.

That the entire system could hinge on the interpretation of a few unaccountable judges is simply mind boggling.And the results were entirely predictable:

"When the courts will have a precedent before them of a court which extended its jurisdiction in opposition to an act of the legislature, is it not to be expected that they will extend theirs, especially when there is nothing in the constitution expressly against it? And they are authorised to construe its meaning, and are not under any control.

This power in the judicial, will enable them to mould the government, into any shape they please. "

Antifederalist 80

I've already said that the Anti-Federalists were eerily prescient about the results.

I don't think there's anything eerie about it. It simply shows that the problems were obvious to many observers at the time.

But it is also true that even the Anti-Federalists believed that with the addition of the Bill of Rights, that the potential problems could be avoided, as sufficient of them voted to enable the passage of the Constitution.

Not exactly. I mean, it passed WITHOUT a bill of rights. They had the promise of a bill of rights. The vote in Virginia was very close. I don't know how all the anti-federalists voted in the end. You are correct that the Bill of Rights failed to fix the inherent flaws. In fact, the Bill of Rights contains some whopping errors in its own right.

For example, why the introductory clause in the 2nd amendment? If people have an absolute right to bear arms, why qualify it regarding militia duty? It muddies the water. The term "respecting the establishment of religion" is regrettably vague." What is an "unreasonable" search or seizure? etc.

I think that once the Constitution passed, it made sense to try to improve it with the bill of rights. But I think those that opposed a national government were correct. Those who supported it (and created it) were dead wrong.

"Not exactly. I mean, it passed WITHOUT a bill of rights. They had the promise of a bill of rights. The vote in Virginia was very close. I don't know how all the anti-federalists voted in the end."

Enough of them that the Constitution was ratified, obviously. Whether the Bill of Rights was included, or merely a promise was made, the tactic convinced enough of them to change their votes to result in ratification.

And the irony of it is that the world has learned nothing from the mistakes, as the "EU" is about to go down exactly the same road.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.