The Constitution: Ratification Objections And Their Impact

The Anti-Federalists played a crucial role in the debate surrounding the ratification of the US Constitution. They mobilized against the Constitution in state legislatures, arguing that it gave too much power to the federal government, resembling a monarchy, and that it would infringe on state sovereignty. The Anti-Federalist Papers, particularly the Brutus essays, provided a compelling rebuttal of the Federalist argument, asserting that the Constitution would render state governments powerless and lead to unlimited legislative power. The absence of a bill of rights to protect individual liberties was also a significant concern. These objections sparked intense debates, with Federalists countering that a strong central government was necessary and promising to add a bill of rights. The ratification process, requiring approval from nine of the thirteen states, faced challenges due to these objections, but ultimately enough states ratified the Constitution, shaping the course of American government.

Explore related products

The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (Signet Classics)

$6.54 $8.95

The Anti-Federalist Papers (Dover Thrift Editions: American History)

$5.59 $10

The Anti-Federalist: Writings by the Opponents of the Constitution

$32.67

Documents of Revolution: Common Sense, The Complete Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, The Articles of Confederation, The Articles of Confederation, The U. S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights

$26.99 $26.99

The Federalist & The Anti-Federalist Papers: Complete Collection: Including the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Important Documents by the Founding Fathers & more

$0.99 $20.4

The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (Hackett Classics)

$10.59 $11

Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government

The Anti-Federalists were against the ratification of the 1787 Constitution, believing that it gave too much power to the federal government. They feared that the new national government would be too powerful and threaten individual liberties, especially given the absence of a bill of rights. They believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, as opposed to a federal one. They advocated for a more decentralized form of government with greater protections for individual rights and stronger representation for the states. They also believed that a large central government would not serve the interests of small towns and rural areas, unlike the urban interests that most Federalist delegates aligned with.

The Anti-Federalists believed that the unitary president resembled a monarch and that this resemblance would eventually produce courts of intrigue in the nation's capital. They also believed that the federal government's powers to tax provided by the Constitution could be used to exploit citizens and weaken the power of the states. They saw the proposed government as a new centralized and "monarchic" power in disguise that would replicate the cast-off governance of Great Britain. They argued that the Constitution, as written, would be oppressive and that it needed a Bill of Rights.

The Anti-Federalists also believed that the Constitution, as drafted, would lead to a loss of individual liberties, an erosion of state sovereignty, and the potential for the rise of tyranny. They believed that the states should be significantly autonomous and independent in their authority, applying the right to self-administration in all significant internal matters without the unwanted interjections of the federal government. They also believed that the Constitution, as written, did not provide sufficient rights in the courts, such as the guarantee of juries in civil cases or local juries in criminal cases.

The Anti-Federalists' opposition to the ratification of the Constitution was a powerful force in the origin of the Bill of Rights to protect Americans' civil liberties. Sensing that Anti-Federalist sentiment would sink ratification efforts, James Madison reluctantly agreed to draft a list of rights that the new federal government could not encroach. This list of rights became known as the Bill of Rights, which includes the right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial, the right to due process under the law, and protections against cruel and unusual punishments.

The Supremacy Clause was criticised for infringing on state sovereignty

The Supremacy Clause, established under Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution, was criticised for infringing on state sovereignty. The Clause states that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land, and that judges in every state are bound by this, regardless of state laws to the contrary. This clause was included in response to problems with the Articles of Confederation, which lacked a provision declaring federal law superior to state law, leading to issues during the Confederation era where federal statutes did not bind state courts without state legislation.

However, Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution argued that the Supremacy Clause would make the national government overly powerful and infringe on state sovereignty. They believed that the new Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress, at the expense of the states, and that the liberties of the people were better protected when power resided in state governments rather than a federal one. They also argued that without a federal bill of rights, the Supremacy Clause would allow the federal government to override state constitutional guarantees of individual liberties.

Some commentators contended that the Supremacy Clause would allow for the displacement of state law without the approval of both Houses of Congress, as the President and Senate could make treaties without the approval of the House of Representatives. Federalist supporters of the Constitution dismissed these concerns, noting that the Constitution granted the federal government only limited powers. They also characterised the Supremacy Clause as a truism that resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the act of constituting a federal government.

The Supreme Court has applied the Supremacy Clause in ways that reinforced dual federalism's sharp division of federal and state power. In the early 20th century, the Court developed a precursor to the doctrine of field preemption, where some federal legislation implicitly prevents states from adopting laws on the same subject. However, during the New Deal era, the Court narrowed the circumstances in which federal law displaced state law to prevent the federal government's expanded powers from overriding state regulatory authority.

The absence of a bill of rights to protect individual liberties

The Anti-Federalists believed that a bill of rights was essential to safeguard individual liberties and prevent the federal government from becoming too powerful. They argued that without explicit guarantees of rights, the federal government could infringe upon the freedoms of its citizens. This concern was heightened by the fact that the Constitution declared all state laws subservient to federal ones, further consolidating power in the central government.

The Federalists, on the other hand, opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights. They argued that it was unnecessary and that the people and states retained all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government. James Madison, a key Federalist figure, initially argued against having a bill of rights, fearing that it would limit the people's rights. However, as opposition grew, Madison eventually agreed to draft a list of rights that the new federal government could not encroach upon.

The absence of a bill of rights was a significant obstacle to the Constitution's ratification by the states. The American people, having recently overthrown the English monarchy, demanded strong guarantees that their newly won freedoms of speech, press, and religion would be protected. They wanted assurance that the federal government would not trample on their rights, including freedom from warrantless searches and seizures.

The Bill of Rights, influenced by documents such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights, was eventually added to the Constitution to address these concerns. It provided explicit protections for individual liberties, including freedom of speech, religion, and the press, as well as the right to bear arms and the right to be free from warrantless searches. The addition of the Bill of Rights was a pivotal moment in the history of liberty, ensuring that the federal government's power was limited and that individual rights were protected.

Explore related products

The Anti-Federalist Papers Publisher: Signet Classics

$11.45 $24.99

The Anti-Federalist Papers

$10.95

The Anti-Federalist Papers

$0.99 $15.99

The Federalist Papers (Dover Thrift Editions: American History)

$6.63 $8

The Federalist Papers, Extended Edition: An Essential Collection of The Original, Unabridged Text (1787–88) With Detailed Commentary on Each Essay to Guide you Through America's Founding Ideas

$24.95

The Complete Federalist and The Anti-Federalist Papers: The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution of Declaration, All Bill Of Rights & Amendments (Part 4)

$7.49

The unitary president was believed to resemble a monarch

The Anti-Federalists, who mobilized against the Constitution in state legislatures across the country, believed that the unitary president resembled a monarch. This was one of the few things they generally agreed on, along with the belief that the new Constitution gave too much power to Congress at the expense of the states, and that the federal government would become tyrannous without a Bill of Rights.

The Anti-Federalists' belief that the unitary president resembled a monarch was influenced by the original draft of the Constitution, which declared all state laws subservient to federal ones and created a king-like office in the presidency. This draft was written in the summer of 1787, and its ratification was uncertain as it required the approval of at least nine of the 13 state legislatures. The failure of the Articles of Confederation made it clear that a new form of government was needed in America, but there were concerns that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government.

The Anti-Federalists' concerns about the unitary president resembling a monarch were not unfounded. Some of the framers of the U.S. Constitution may have envisioned the president as an elected constitutional monarch, with powers similar to those of a king. In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch is typically the head of the executive branch and a powerful figure, although their power is limited by the constitution and the elected parliament. While the monarch of the United Kingdom, for example, has many political powers, it is widely believed that most of these powers are lapsed and are no longer exercised.

The unitary executive theory, which argues for a strong unitary executive within the armed forces and outside of it, has been criticized by legal scholars and historians. They argue that the U.S. Constitution does not provide for an equally strong unitary executive outside the military context, and that unitary control over the executive is a defining characteristic of autocracy.

The original draft of the Constitution did not set term limits for members of Congress or the president

The original draft of the US Constitution did not set term limits for members of Congress or the president, and this was a significant point of contention during the debates surrounding its ratification. The Anti-Federalists, a group that included prominent figures like Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Richard Henry Lee, argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government at the expense of state sovereignty. They believed that the unitary president resembled a monarch too closely and that this would lead to executive overreach. These concerns were heightened after Franklin D. Roosevelt served as president for almost thirteen years during the Great Depression and World War II.

The Anti-Federalists' fears about the concentration of power in the presidency were not unfounded. During the drafting of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison envisioned a president who would be nominated by Congress to serve for life, a proposal that evoked comparisons to an "elective monarchy." This idea was ultimately not incorporated into the final version of the Constitution, but it highlights the differing opinions among the Framers regarding the role and term limits of the president.

It is worth noting that the Constitution, as it stands, does not impose term limits on members of Congress. While there have been discussions and proposals over the years to address this issue, no formal amendments have been made to impose term limits on members of Congress. The lack of term limits for members of Congress remains a topic of ongoing debate in American politics.

In contrast, the Twenty-second Amendment, ratified in 1951, established term limits for the presidency. This amendment limits an individual to serving two terms as president, each consisting of four years. The Twenty-second Amendment was a direct response to concerns about executive overreach and the potential for a president to remain in office indefinitely, as seen in the case of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Frequently asked questions