Skip to comments.The Antifederalists Were Right
Posted on 05/22/2010 3:40:40 AM PDT by RogerFGay
click here to read article
That’s a great article!!! Brutus was certainly right. Thanks for posting!
The framers of the Constitution did not foresee the possibility of an anti-American president who would need to be removed immediately by an impeachment originating from among a majority of the populace, not the House of representatives. Now we see the flaw.
Robert Yates a Yankee I can agree with!
One of the most insightful of the Antifederalists was Robert Yates, a New York judge who, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, withdrew because the convention was exceeding its instructions. Yates wrote as Brutus in the debates over the Constitution. Given his experience as a judge, his claim that the Supreme Court would become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching was particularly insightful.
History furnishes no example of a free republic, anything like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was, that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world.
-- Robert Yates
We have to post the entire Anti-Federalist papers on Free Republic!
Good read thank you for posting.
Patrick Henry - “The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others.”
Also, the necessity of a virtuous electorate to the continuance of our republic was widely discussed at the time. An immoral people will elect dirtbags. We've got the government we deserve, not the one designed by our Framers.
We now live in a color coded anti-white male feminized society that has been rubber stamped by the Supreme Disappointment. A Constitution not followed is worse than no Constitution at all. This state of affairs breeds contempt for the government in the intelligent, and a sentimental belief in the phony protections it was supposed to have in the weak minded. As such, the Constitution now provides a fig leaf for the naked aggression of the socialist statist agenda.
Also, why do we look to the failed systems of the past to point to the way it should be? And I don't see any suggestion of a better way proposed. 50 independent states without an elected central system is called Europe. Ours has been the most successful system yet, and all it needs is a few patriots with balls to set it right again! It is not irreparable; it is in need of some serious house-cleaning and return to the Founders' guiding intentions.
” did not foresee the possibility of an anti-American president “
Unfortunately, the “all we gotta do is get rid of Obama” solution is a non-solution which completely misses the point...
Obama did not spring whole from the Earth brandishing his terrible swift sword to bring about the ruination of our once-great nation — he is merely the culmination, the current manifestation, of a process which, the author of this article says - correctly, IMO - traces its roots to flaws in the original Constitution, and began in earnest with the 14th amendment....
The removal of the current claque is necessary, but only as a step towards addressing the core problems that brought us to this sorry state...
FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution, Federalist #21
A Publius/Billthedrill Essay | 20 May 2010 | Publius & Billthedrill
We will post two threads per week, every Monday and Thursday, starting February 1, for 55 weeks. Again, we will use the keyword freeperbookclub to mark these threads.
What is old has become new again. Its time to explore federalism and the philosophy of the Framers. The lessons of 1787 are just as valid today.
The thing that gets me is how the power hungry mobsters can use the Antifederalist criticisms as a plan. The intent was well documented as well as what not to do. We have to contend with the fact that what’s been done wrong was done knowing it to be wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
That's a tagline.
Something left out of these threads is that some powerful people had a personal interest in the continuance of the anarchy under the Articles. Most prominent were southern planters with pre-war debts to English creditors. Without a federal judiciary, these debts could not be collected in accordance with the peace treaty.
With all honesty, the Anti-Federalists were correct. When studying the Anti-Federalist while attending Georgetown, their main problem was - “organization”. They were not as organized as Hamilton, Madison ,and Jay -
Rarely are the Anti-Federalist discussed in Constitutional Law classes. Anti- Federalist books should be read time and time again by Conservatives.
In 1988, I was privileged to be asked to write the Introduction to the reprint of Robert Yates' Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention to Form the US Constitution. Judge Yates was the leading Anti-Federalist, and sought to defeat the Constitution in Philadelphia, and later in the New York Ratification Convention.
That lengthy Introduction pointed out that the ratification nearly failed in both Virginia and New York. Most importantly, it pointed out that the claims of the Anti-Federalists were coming true not in their time, but in ours.
Though it was written almost a quarter century ago, I stand by every word of that. And, BTW, it was not just the Anti-Federalists who feared an over-reaching federal judiciary. Thomas Jefferson called it "the most dangerous branch," and gave his reasons.
John / Billybob / Ben
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.