Federalists v. Anti-Federalists On Whether We Needed a Bill of Rights

Lesson Objectives Explain why Anti-Federalists opposed ratifying the Constitution. Discuss the role of the Anti-Federalists in proposing a bill of rights and other contributions toward interpreting the Constitution. Take and defend a position on the validity and relevance of the Anti-Federalist view.

Ratification Madison developed a plan in Article VII 9 states had to ratify Go directly to the voters in coventions Delegates would be select by the voters Built upon, “We the People” Built upon Social Contract Theory Consistent with recent state approval State Const. approved by people

Where and how did the debate take place? Where: Convention Mason leaves without signing Ratification not assumed New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia Main authors wrote under psuedonyms George Mason * Richard Lee Melancton Smith *Luther Martin Robert Yates

Why was ratification required? Articles of Confederation required that Congress and state legislatures of all 50 states approve changes. Delegates knew members of Congress and the state legislatures would not approve the draft of the Constitution Reduced state powers Rhode Island had not sent a delegation

Main Ideas of Anti-Federalists Basic ideas of Republicanism Small community – similar beliefs Common good Representation of constituents Large state or nation cannot preserve Too many diverse interests Constituents are too far from government Do not know constituents Cannot reflect their character Use army to enforce Tax them for the use of the army

Anti-federalists Continued Cost of national taxation to states Agrarian communities produce people with civic virtue More likely to sacrifice for the common good. Social and cultural institutions: education and religion work better in small communities…foster civic virtue

Philosophy translated into objections People could not control the government Objected to Necessary and Proper Clause Felt it could take liberty from people and states President can pardon for crimes Crimes he may have encouraged them to commit National courts have too much power. Can destroy state courts Violation of checks and balances Some items such as treaties only approved through the Senate. Executive and legislative can work together to pass legislation that would undermine state and local legislatures.

Bill of Rights Needed to protect individual and state rights. At that time only the House was directly elected by the people. Rights are so vague – nearly unlimited—Necessary and Proper Nothing in the Constitution to protect individual rights State Constitutions had a bill of rights Bill of Rights is needed to remind the people of the principles of our system.

The Anti-Federalist Argument At the Virginia Ratification Convention, Patrick Henry spoke: If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw — government that has abandoned all its powers — the powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a bill of rights — without check, limitation, or control. And still you have checks and guards; still you keep barriers — pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated state government! You have a bill of rights to defend you against the state government, which is bereaved of all power, and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power! You arm yourselves against the weak and defenseless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity? What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defense is given up. This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman.