Brutus' Constitutional Concern: The Federal Clause

Brutus, the pen name of an anonymous Anti-Federalist, wrote a series of 16 essays under the name Brutus, which were published in the New-York Journal and Weekly Register. These essays were written to encourage New Yorkers to reject the proposed Constitution, and they are considered among the best of those written to oppose the adoption of the proposed constitution. Brutus is particularly concerned with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which he believes will allow the government to possess absolute and uncontrollable power, rendering the various state governments powerless.

Explore related products

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

$33

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

$8.32 $8.95

The Anti-Federalist: An Abridgment of The Complete Anti-Federalist

$32.99

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The Federalist: With Letters of Brutus (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought)

$40.21 $42

The Federalist Papers (Dover Thrift Editions: American History)

$7.14 $8

Necessary and Proper Clause

Brutus, in his Anti-Federalist Papers, expressed concerns about the Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, Coefficient Clause, or Basket Clause. This clause, found in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, grants Congress the power to:

> "...make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Brutus argued that this clause would render state governments powerless, as it would allow Congress to repeal state laws, such as state fundraising laws, if they conflicted with federal laws or the general welfare of the United States. He believed that the Necessary and Proper Clause would enable the federal government to possess "absolute and uncontrollable power," threatening individual liberties and state sovereignty.

The Necessary and Proper Clause was a significant point of contention during the debates over the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists, like Brutus and Patrick Henry, feared that it would lead to limitless federal power. On the other hand, Federalists like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison defended the clause, arguing that it only permitted the execution of powers granted by the Constitution.

The interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause continued to be a source of disagreement between political parties for several decades after the Constitution was ratified. A notable example of this dispute occurred in 1791 when Hamilton used the clause to justify the establishment of the First Bank of the United States, while Madison argued against its constitutionality. The Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 further reinforced Hamilton's interpretation, ruling that the clause grants Congress implied powers in addition to its enumerated powers.

State sovereignty

Brutus, the pen name of an Anti-Federalist, wrote a series of essays to encourage New Yorkers to reject the proposed Constitution. These essays, written to "the Citizens of the State of New York", are considered among the best arguments against the ratification of the Constitution. One of Brutus's main concerns was the preservation of state sovereignty and the potential loss of liberty that could result from a consolidated government.

Brutus argued that the Necessary and Proper Clause, the last clause of Article I, Section 8, gave Congress too much power, particularly over the states. This clause allows Congress to repeal state laws if they believe those laws may prevent the collection of federal taxes necessary for the general welfare of the United States. Brutus feared this could lead to a federal government that possesses "absolute and uncontrollable power", rendering state governments powerless and ultimately destroying their sovereignty.

Furthermore, Brutus questioned the validity of the Three-fifths Compromise, which gave each state, regardless of size, the same number of senators. He saw this as a form of corruption and believed it would lead to senators being less in touch with their constituents' interests. Brutus also objected to Congress's role in appointing officers and impeachment, as it gave them both executive and judicial powers.

Brutus preferred a true confederation, or "a number of independent states entering, for conducting certain general concerns, in which they have a common interest, leaving the management of their internal and local affairs to their separate governments." He believed that a large national government would lead to the elite rising above the control of the people and abusing their power. He also warned of the dangers of Congress's power to hold a standing army in peacetime and to borrow money on the credit of the United States, which he saw as a threat to public liberty.

Overall, Brutus's writings highlight the Anti-Federalist concerns about the central government gaining too much power at the expense of the states and the people. He argued for the importance of liberty and the maintenance of control over large territories to prevent the potential abuse of power.

Large republic governance

Brutus, the pen name of an Anti-Federalist, wrote a series of essays to encourage New Yorkers to reject the proposed Constitution. The essays were written to the citizens of the state of New York and are considered among the best arguments against the adoption of the proposed constitution. One of Brutus's main concerns was the potential danger of a large republic governance.

Brutus argued that reducing the thirteen states into "one great republic" would facilitate the ability of the government elite to rise above the control of the people and abuse their power. He believed that in a large republic, it would be challenging to hold the government accountable for its actions and prevent the abuse of power. Brutus also questioned whether a diverse, large population could be effectively united under a strong central government. He quoted Baron de Montesquieu to support his argument, stating that over time, the governments of large territories tend to shift from free governments to more tyrannical ones.

Furthermore, Brutus was concerned about the concentration of power in the federal government and its potential impact on state governments. He argued that the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution would give Congress the authority to repeal state laws, such as state fundraising laws, in the name of providing for the general welfare of the United States. This, according to Brutus, would render the state governments powerless and transform the confederation of smaller republics into a single, consolidated government.

Brutus also questioned the validity of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the method of electing senators, and their six-year term. He advocated for a rotating government to ensure that senators remained in touch with their constituents' interests. Additionally, he objected to Congress's involvement in appointing officers and impeachment, as it granted them both executive and judicial powers.

Overall, Brutus's arguments highlighted the potential challenges of large republic governance and the importance of maintaining liberty and control among the states and the people. He believed that a true confederation, where independent states managed their internal and local affairs, was preferrable to a large national government.

Explore related products

The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics)

$8.12 $8.95

The Federalist Papers: Large Print Unabridged 1787 Original Version

$27.99

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 Federalist: A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States (Modern Library Classics)

$13.74 $24

The Federalist Papers Made Easier: The Complete and Original Text Subdivided and Annotated for Easier Understanding

$24.95

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

Federal vs. state power

Brutus, the pen name of an Anti-Federalist, wrote a series of essays to encourage New Yorkers to reject the proposed Constitution. The essays, addressed to "the Citizens of the State of New York", were widely reprinted and commented on throughout the American states.

In his writings, Brutus expressed concern about the potential dangers of a large national government and the consolidation of power at the federal level. He argued that the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to enact laws necessary for the general welfare of the United States, could be used to repeal state laws and nullify state constitutions. This, he believed, would lead to the creation of a federal government with absolute and uncontrollable power, threatening the liberties of the states and their citizens.

Brutus also questioned the validity of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the method of electing senators, and the length of their terms. He advocated for a true confederation, where independent states would collaborate on issues of mutual interest while retaining control over their internal affairs. Additionally, he criticised Congress's power to appoint officers and its ability to borrow money, maintain a standing army during peacetime, and collect revenue.

The Anti-Federalist Brutus and the Federalists, led by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, presented opposing views on the ratification of the Constitution. While Brutus warned of the potential tyranny and abuse of power by a large national government, the Federalists advocated for ratification, believing in the benefits of a consolidated government.

Judicial powers

Brutus, the pen name of an Anti-Federalist, wrote a series of essays to encourage New Yorkers to reject the proposed Constitution. The Brutus essays are considered among the most cohesive and compelling arguments against the ratification of the Constitution. In his essays, Brutus expresses concerns about the potential dangers of a large national government and the concentration of power in the federal government, which he believes will come at the expense of state powers and individual liberties.

One of Brutus's main worries is the expansion of judicial powers and its implications for federalism and state sovereignty. Brutus argues that the power given to the judiciary will extend legislative authority, increase the jurisdiction of the courts, and diminish and destroy both the legislative and judiciary powers of the states. He foresees a situation where the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution according to its "spirit and reason", unbound by the exact wording, allowing it to "mold the government into almost any shape they please".

Brutus also criticizes the blurring of powers among different branches of government. He objects to Congress taking part in appointing officers and impeachment, as it grants them both executive and judicial powers. He believes that Congress possesses far too much power, especially over the states, and that its powers, such as the ability to hold a standing army in peacetime and borrow money on the country's credit, pose a severe threat to public liberty.

Furthermore, Brutus is concerned about the Necessary and Proper Clause, which he believes gives Congress the authority to repeal state laws, including state fundraising laws, under the pretext of providing for the general welfare of the nation. This, according to Brutus, would render state governments powerless and lead to the creation of an all-powerful federal government.

In summary, Brutus's writings reflect a deep suspicion of a consolidated government and a strong preference for a confederation of independent states, each managing its internal affairs while collaborating on issues of mutual interest. His arguments highlight the complexities and ongoing debates surrounding the appropriate size, scope, and powers of the federal government in the United States.

Frequently asked questions