Malcolm Rivera
The most persuasive objection to the Constitution, according to George Mason and other anti-federalists, was that the Senate had the right to ratify or reject a treaty made by the President. This sparked a debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, with the former arguing that the proposed Constitution would rely on separation of powers and checks and balances. The debate took the form of a cacophonous argument, with close analyses of specific clauses accompanied by wild predictions of the effects of ratification.
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Anti-Federalists' objections to the Constitution
The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution, arguing that it gave too much power to the federal government at the expense of individual liberties and state powers. They believed in a weak central government and strong state governments, and their opposition was a powerful force in the origin of the Bill of Rights.
The Anti-Federalists included small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers. They advocated for the direct election of government officials, short term limits for officeholders, accountability of officeholders to popular majorities, and the strengthening of individual liberties. They also believed that the new Constitution created a king-like office in the presidency.
In state legislatures across the country, Anti-Federalists mobilized against the Constitution. Notable Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry, Melancton Smith, and Samuel Adams, publicly opposed ratification, arguing that the Constitution gave the federal government excessive powers. In Massachusetts, arguments between Federalists and Anti-Federalists turned physical in a brawl between Elbridge Gerry and Francis Dana.
To counter the Federalist Papers, a series of essays defending the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists published their own series of articles and speeches, now known as the Anti-Federalist Papers. They brought to light fears of the necessary and proper clause, which they believed gave Congress too much power, and concerns that republican government could not work in a country the size of the United States. They also objected to the role of the Senate in ratifying treaties without concurrence in the House of Representatives.
The Anti-Federalists' most persuasive objection to the Constitution was the lack of a bill of rights to protect individual liberties. This argument ultimately led to the adoption of the First Amendment and the other nine amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
Exclusionary Rule: Where in the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Federalists' defence of separation of powers
The Federalist Papers, a series of essays published in newspapers and addressed to the people of the state of New York, are regarded as one of the most authoritative sources on the meaning of the US Constitution. James Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote Federalist No. 47 and Federalist No. 51, in which he defended the form of republican government proposed by the Constitution and explained the checks and balances system.
In Federalist No. 47, Madison discusses the separation of powers, a concept derived from the text and structure of the Constitution, which seeks to distribute governmental authority across three branches: the legislative, executive, and judiciary. Madison argues that the preservation of liberty requires these three branches to be separate and distinct, with each branch exercising a separate function of government. He highlights the British constitution, where the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments are not totally separate, and the executive magistrate forms an integral part of the legislative authority. Madison emphasizes that the accumulation of all powers—legislative, executive, and judiciary—in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, can be considered tyranny.
In Federalist No. 51, Madison further elaborates on the checks and balances system, explaining that each branch of government is designed to check the power of the other two branches. He asserts that each branch is dependent on the people, who are the source of legitimate authority, and that a republican government can serve as a check on the power of factions and the tyranny of the majority. Madison's political theory, influenced by Montesquieu's "The Spirit of the Laws", recognizes the need for constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments by one branch on the powers of another.
The Federalist Papers, including Madison's contributions, played a crucial role in convincing Americans that the Constitution would safeguard their freedom. Alexander Hamilton, another author of the Federalist Papers, argued for a strong executive leader as provided for by the Constitution, asserting that "energy in the executive is the leading character in the definition of good government." The Federalist Papers, with their defence of separation of powers and checks and balances, continue to be a significant source of constitutional interpretation and understanding.
Founding Fathers: Slave Owners and the Constitution
You may want to see also
Federalists' defence of checks and balances
The Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, defended the form of republican government proposed by the US Constitution. One of the most important ideas in the papers is the explanation and defence of the system of checks and balances.
In Federalist No. 51, Madison explains that the system of checks and balances is necessary because men are not angels. He acknowledges that the ideal government would be one ruled by angels, but in reality, some government officials will inevitably push legislation that serves their interests rather than those of their constituents. The system of checks and balances prevents this from happening. Madison also points out that the idea of checks and balances is a universal concept with roots in the Enlightenment period and the political theories of thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Madison emphasizes that the legislative branch is the strongest in a republican form of government, as it is the true voice of the people. Therefore, it must be divided into different branches that are as independent of each other as possible, with different modes of election. This division of power guards the government against usurpations. Madison also notes that the federal republic of the United States, with its various parts, interests, and classes of citizens, further protects the rights of individuals and minorities.
The Federalist Papers argue that the different branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) and the separation of powers between the federal and state governments help maintain checks and balances. Madison suggests that these branches must be independent and have mutual relations to keep each other in check. He also highlights the role of representative democracy in establishing checks and balances, as it ensures that each branch impacts the legislation proposed by others.
In conclusion, the Federalists' defence of checks and balances in the Constitution revolves around the belief that a system of divided and independent branches of government, with mutual relations and influenced by representative democracy, is necessary to control abuses of power and protect the rights of individuals, minorities, and the country as a whole.
Actual Innocence: A Constitutional Claim?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Federalists' refutations
In the Federalist Papers, Federalists refuted Anti-Federalist arguments published in newspapers and public spaces. The tone of the debate was often less civil than that of political theorists, and the discourse included logical fallacies.
The Federalists' defence of the proposed Constitution was based on the idea that it would protect against majority rule, which could be a threat to individual rights. They believed that the Constitution's reliance on separation of powers and checks and balances would prevent this.
Understanding Data Breach Severity: Low, Moderate, High
You may want to see also
The role of newspapers in the debate
Newspapers played a critical role in the debate surrounding the Constitution. Between 1787 and 1790, 95 newspapers were printed throughout the United States, with 69 in the Northern states and 26 in the Southern states. The country's largest towns had the most newspapers: Philadelphia had 11 of Pennsylvania's 15 newspapers, and New York City had 9 of New York State's 13.
Newspapers were instrumental in shaping public opinion during the ratification debates. The Pennsylvania Gazette, for example, predicted that 1787 would be remembered as a year of revolution in favour of government. While only about six newspapers actively opposed the proposed new form of government, and another half dozen remained neutral, the majority of newspapers were strongly Federalist and printed items in favour of the Constitution. The Federalist essays of Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay, published under the pseudonym Publius, are a notable example.
Anti-Federalists, however, also utilised newspapers to voice their concerns. They published essays under pseudonyms like Brutus, Cato, and the Federal Farmer in New York newspapers, critiquing the Constitution. The publishers of the Boston Massachusetts Centinel and the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Benjamin Russell and Eleazer Oswald, respectively, were notable Anti-Federalist exceptions who personally participated in the political debates in their newspapers.
Newspapers provided a platform for both sides of the debate to engage in often-contentious arguments that took place not only in homes and taverns but also on the printed page. They played a crucial role in disseminating information, fostering discussion, and influencing public opinion during the ratification debates over the Constitution.
Unwritten Constitution: Understanding the Uncodified Law
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The most persuasive objection to the US Constitution was that it did not include a bill of rights.
Federalists responded to Anti-Federalist objections, but many of their answers were vague and evasive.
The debates took the form of lengthy and passionate newspaper essays and public speeches, with appeals to principle and common sense.
![An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed by the Late Convention Held at Philadelphia, with Answers to the Principal Objections That Have 1787 [Leather Bound]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/617DLHXyzlL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
