Key Objections To The Constitution: Addressing Concerns

George Mason, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison were among the key figures who raised objections to the Constitution of Government formed by the Convention in 1787. Mason, in particular, expressed concerns about the absence of a Declaration of Rights, the precedence of the laws of the general government over state laws, and the potential for monopolies in trade and commerce. Hamilton and Madison addressed the issue of not including a Bill of Rights, arguing that the Constitution itself contained provisions protecting rights and that a federal bill of rights was unnecessary and could even be dangerous. Madison also warned against implying unlimited federal powers, a concern that was addressed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Explore related products

The U.S. Constitution: Explained--Clause by Clause--for Every American Today

$9.97 $12

The Constitution Explained: A Guide for Every American

$15.35 $24.95

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

$6.92 $8.95

What the Anti-Federalists Were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution

$18.65 $23

The Anti-Federalist Papers

$10.95

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

No Bill of Rights

One of the major objections to the US Constitution was the lack of a bill of rights. This was a key rallying cry for the Anti-Federalists, who opposed the strong national government created by the Constitution. The Federalists, on the other hand, supported the new government established by the Constitution.

The Anti-Federalists argued that a bill of rights was necessary to protect individual rights against the powerful state governments. Most state constitutions already had provisions in place to guarantee these rights. They believed that the Constitution was the product of wealthy and privileged elites who were promoting their own interests.

Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, addressed this objection in Federalist 84. He argued that the Constitution itself contained provisions protecting rights, such as clauses against ex post facto laws, religious tests, and the impairment of contracts. Hamilton also pointed out that the federal government only possessed limited powers that were delegated to it in the Constitution, so there was no need for a federal bill of rights. In fact, he warned that such a bill could be dangerous as it might imply that the government had the power to act in areas not granted to it.

Despite these arguments, the Anti-Federalists eventually won over key Federalists, and the first 10 constitutional amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were drafted. These amendments ensured that citizens could sue if the government infringed on their rights.

Federal overreach

One of the key objections to the Constitution was the concern over federal overreach and the establishment of a strong national government. The Anti-Federalists, a group that included several prominent figures from the Revolution such as Patrick Henry, opposed the expansion of federal powers and sought to limit the influence of the central government. They believed that the Constitution, with its creation of a large, federal government and more centralised control, would lead to government tyranny, similar to what had been experienced under British rule.

The Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution's "necessary and proper" clause granted the federal Congress excessive legislative power, allowing it to pass any laws it deemed necessary and proper for governing the nation. This concern was heightened by the absence of a bill of rights in the original Constitution, which they believed was necessary to safeguard individual liberties and prevent federal overreach. The lack of a bill of rights became a rallying cry for the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debate, as most state constitutions already had provisions protecting the rights of their citizens.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 84, addressed the objection regarding the absence of a bill of rights. He argued that the Constitution itself contained provisions protecting rights, such as clauses against ex post facto laws, religious tests, and the impairment of contracts. Hamilton also pointed out that the federal government, as established by the Constitution, had limited powers and did not possess the authority to address basic individual rights. Therefore, a federal bill of rights was unnecessary and could even be dangerous, as it might provide a pretext for the federal government to claim powers that were not granted to it.

However, the Anti-Federalists eventually prevailed, and the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, were added. These amendments ensured that citizens could seek judicial redress if their rights were infringed upon by the government. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments specifically addressed concerns about federal overreach, clarifying that the listing of rights in the Constitution did not deny other rights retained by the people and that all powers not granted to the federal government belonged to the states or the people.

Lack of term limits

One of the key objections to the US Constitution at the time of its ratification was the lack of term limits for members of Congress. This was a concern for the Anti-Federalists, who worried that long terms of office with no limits on re-election would result in the formation of an elected aristocracy, particularly in the Senate. This was one of the reasons why some states, such as North Carolina, refused to initially ratify the Constitution.

The Anti-Federalists preferred the system under the Articles of Confederation, which had a weak federal government with no national judiciary or executive branches and no standing army. They believed that true republican government required a small geographic area where representatives could truly understand the concerns and interests of their constituents. In contrast, the Constitution proposed a large, federal government with more centralized control, which the Anti-Federalists saw as a potential threat to individual liberties.

Alexander Hamilton, a key Federalist, argued that the Constitution, as designed, already limited the powers of the federal government and secured the rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. He believed that a bill of rights at the national level was unnecessary and could even be dangerous, as it might imply that the government had powers beyond those specifically granted in the Constitution.

However, the lack of a bill of rights became a significant rallying cry for the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debate. Eventually, they succeeded in convincing key Federalists, and James Madison, who had initially opposed a bill of rights, drafted the first 10 constitutional amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, to address these concerns. These amendments ensured that citizens could sue if the government infringed on their rights.

Explore related products

The Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist Dispute: The Original Arguments For Each

$0.99 $25.13

The Anti-Federalist Writings of the Melancton Smith Circle

$14.5 $29

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

$8.89 $10

The Federalist Papers (Dover Thrift Editions: American History)

$6.29 $8

Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist: ALL Essays and Articles in One Edition: Founding Fathers' Political and Philosophical Debate, Their Opinions and Arguments about the Constitution:

$0.99

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788 ( Complete )

$15

Wealthy, privileged elites

One of the key figures in the objections to the Constitution was George Mason, who was concerned about the concentration of power in the hands of a wealthy, privileged elite. In his "Objections to the Constitution of Government formed by the Convention", Mason argued that the Constitution would lead to a "moderate aristocracy" that could potentially veer towards monarchy or oppressive rule. He feared that the commercial and navigation laws would favour the northern and eastern states, enabling merchants to demand exorbitant freight charges and monopolize commodity purchases, thereby impoverishing the people of the southern states.

Mason also objected to the absence of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, which he believed was necessary to safeguard individual liberties. He felt that the Declarations of Rights in the separate states were insufficient security, and that the people's enjoyment of common-law benefits was at risk. Mason's concerns reflected a broader anxiety about the centralization of power and the potential for the government to become "indefinite" in its powers, rather than limited and enumerated as it should be.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 84, responded to the objection regarding the lack of a Bill of Rights. He argued that the Constitution itself contained provisions protecting rights, such as clauses against ex post facto laws, religious tests, and the impairment of contracts. Hamilton maintained that the Constitution was designed to limit government power and secure the rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. He also cautioned that a bill of rights at the national level could be dangerous, as it might provide a pretext for the government to claim powers that were not granted.

However, the absence of a bill of rights remained a significant issue for Anti-Federalists during the ratification debate. James Madison, who initially opposed a bill of rights, eventually drafted the language for the first session of Congress. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were designed to protect rights stemming not from the government but from the people, and to explicitly reserve all non-delegated powers to the states or the people. Despite these amendments, critics like Mason remained concerned about the potential for the government to consolidate power and infringe upon individual liberties.

No state recall of senators

One of the key objections to the US Constitution was the lack of a bill of rights. Most state constitutions already had provisions in place to guarantee the individual rights of state citizens. This issue became a rallying cry for the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debate, and it eventually led to the addition of the first 10 constitutional amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.

The Anti-Federalists, a group that included several well-known heroes of the Revolution such as Patrick Henry, generally opposed the strong national government created by the Constitution. They particularly objected to sections such as the "necessary and proper" clause, which allowed the federal Congress to pass any laws it deemed necessary and proper to govern the nation.

The Anti-Federalists also proposed allowing state legislatures to recall senators and requiring rotating terms in office. They believed that true republican government required a small geographic area where representatives could get to know their constituents and effectively promote their concerns and interests. However, the House of Representatives proposed under the Constitution would only have 55 seats, a smaller body than many state legislatures at the time.

The lack of a bill of rights and the centralization of power in the federal government were major concerns for the Anti-Federalists. They saw the Constitution as a product of wealthy and privileged elites who sought to promote their own ambition and power. The addition of the Bill of Rights was a significant concession to their demands, but the Anti-Federalists continued to advocate for further limitations on the power of the federal government and greater representation for the states.

Frequently asked questions