Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Congressman Billybob
One must question whether our present state is due to flaws in the Constitution, or the result of the “200 Year Rule”, whereby a republican-based government is successful for about 200 years, plus/minus, until the corruption of the citizen class brings about its demise. If the United States is finally falling as a result of the 200 Year Rule (and the issue is still in doubt, although prospects do not look good), blaming the Federalists for the eventual failure is not realistic. It is the populace that made the Obamanation President, not the dead hand of Madison, Hamilton, Jay or anyone at the Philadelphia Convention.

And extolling the virtues of the Anti-federalist ideas ignores the simple fact that they came up with absolutely nothing. They never produced a document, an “Anti-federalist Constitution”, either before, during, or after the adoption of the Constitution. What prevented them from holding their own Constitutional convention, even after the Constitution actually went into effect and proposing their own, better document?

I'm reminded of Churchill's statement: “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

So it is with the Constitution: the worst organizational document, except for all the others proposed. The only other document that was ever come up with was the Articles of Confederation, and its flaws were what led to the Constitution.

In the end there are two types of Anti-federalists:

1) those that have come up with something better,

2) the critics, whiners and complainers.

So far there are no Anti-federalists who qualify for 1).

Perhaps it is long past time for Anti-federalists to actually come up with a document.

26 posted on 05/22/2010 5:46:28 AM PDT by Cheburashka (Stephen Decatur: you want barrels of gunpowder as tribute, you must expect cannonballs with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: Cheburashka
And extolling the virtues of the Anti-federalist ideas ignores the simple fact that they came up with absolutely nothing. They never produced a document, an “Anti-federalist Constitution”, either before, during, or after the adoption of the Constitution. What prevented them from holding their own Constitutional convention, even after the Constitution actually went into effect and proposing their own, better document?

Ridiculous. First, the antifederalists (the real federalists) had a document--The Articles of Confederation.

Second, the delegates in Philly were sent to the convention to fix the Articles by adding a few specific powers--they weren't supposed to create a new system. In other words, the antifeds had already offered their ideas and sent delegates to act on those ideas.

Third, The antifeds didn't create a constitution because they were against consolidating the government. They believed in a union of states--not a single, unified, consolidated, supreme government.

Finally, they didn't hold a convention after ratification because they had lost the political battle. Most antifeds followed Patrick Henry's example. Once the Constitution was ratified, they accepted it and moved on.

50 posted on 05/23/2010 8:13:01 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson