Least Convincing Anti-Constitution Argument

The ratification of the U.S. Constitution was a contentious issue, with Federalists and Anti-Federalists engaging in fierce debates. The Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution consolidated too much power in the national government, resembling the British monarchy, and that it lacked a bill of rights to protect individual liberties. While the Federalists prevailed and the Constitution was ratified in 1788, the Anti-Federalists' arguments played an important role in shaping the adoption of the Bill of Rights, which secured basic rights and privileges for American citizens. The least used argument against ratification is unclear, but it is worth noting that the Anti-Federalists' concerns about centralized power and the need for a bill of rights were significant aspects of the debate.

Explore related products

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

$0.99 $25.13

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

$18.65 $23

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

$10 $14.95

The Federalist Papers (Dover Thrift Editions: American History)

$7.14 $8

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

$0.99 $1.99

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 Constitution gave too much power to Congress

The Anti-Federalists, who opposed the ratification of the Constitution, believed that the new Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress, at the expense of the states. They argued that the Constitution would concentrate power in a national government, taking away the power of the states to make their own decisions.

The Anti-Federalists believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, rather than a federal one. They saw the new Constitution as mimicking the old corrupt and centralized British regime, where a distant government made the laws. They believed that the unitary president, with the power to veto legislation created by Congress, resembled a monarch and that this would eventually produce courts of intrigue in the nation's capital.

The Anti-Federalists also believed that the wealthy aristocrats would run the new national government and that the elite would not represent ordinary citizens. They feared that the rich would monopolize power and use the new government to formulate policies that benefited their own class, undermining local state elites.

To address these concerns, the Federalists, who supported the ratification of the Constitution, argued that a centralized republic provided the best solution for the future. They believed that the new Constitution primarily attempted to protect liberties against a more powerful government through a system of separation of powers, federalism, and other checks and balances. The Constitution divided the federal government into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, ensuring that no individual or group would have too much power.

The unitary president resembled a monarch

The Anti-Federalists, who favoured a weaker federal government, believed that the unitary president resembled a monarch. They argued that the new Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress, at the expense of the states. This, they believed, would eventually produce "courts of intrigue" in the nation's capital.

The Anti-Federalists' view was that the unitary president was a king in all but name. They believed that the president's powers and features were similar to those of monarchs at the time. Some of the powers that the president held, which were also held by monarchs, included war powers, an absolute veto, and the ability to appoint judges.

While the Constitution does not establish executive features that reflect some conventional traits of monarchy, such as pomp and circumstance, hereditary succession, and life tenure, the Anti-Federalists believed that the president's authority over the executive branch was too similar to that of a monarch. They pointed to the president's address to Congress as being too similar to the annual address of the English crown.

The unitary executive theory, which holds that the president has sole authority over the executive branch, has been a topic of debate and disagreement since the Reagan administration. Some critics argue that a more unitary executive could lead to more corruption and less qualified employees.

While the majority of U.S. constitutional delegates did not favour establishing a monarchy, there were those who wished to see the executive at least resemble a monarchy. However, what a monarchy entailed was vague at the time, and there were differing opinions on what powers constituted a monarchy.

The federal government would be too far removed to represent citizens

The Anti-Federalists, who opposed the 1787 Constitution, argued that the federal government would be too far removed to represent citizens effectively. They believed that the Constitution would consolidate power in a national government, taking power away from the states and local governments. This, they argued, would result in a federal government that was too far removed from the average citizen to truly represent them and address their concerns.

The Anti-Federalists saw the Constitution as granting too much power to the federal courts, at the expense of state and local courts. They believed that the federal courts would be too distant to provide justice to citizens. In their view, the Constitution resembled the old, corrupt, and centralized British regime, where a far-off government made the laws. They feared that the federal government would be controlled by wealthy aristocrats and elites, who would formulate policies that benefited their own class, thus undermining local state elites.

To address these concerns, the Federalists, who supported the Constitution, argued that the federal courts had limited jurisdiction, leaving many areas of law to the state and local courts. They believed that the new federal courts were necessary to provide checks and balances on the power of the other branches of government and to protect citizens from government abuse. Federalists also argued that dividing the government into separate branches, with checks and balances, would prevent any one branch or person from becoming too powerful.

The Federalists eventually promised to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution to address Anti-Federalist concerns and gain their support. This Bill of Rights, added in 1791, included guaranteed protections for certain basic liberties, such as freedom of speech and the right to a trial by jury.

Explore related products

Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist: The Great Debate (Complete Articles & Essays in One Volume): Constitutional Arguments Shaping American Democracy

$1.99

The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics)

$7.23 $8.95

The Federalist Papers + Anti-Federalist Papers: Including Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights

$2.1

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

$13.2 $24

Patrick Henry (Routledge Historical Americans)

$38.99 $54.99

No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation’s Founding, With a New Preface (The Nathan I. Huggins Lectures)

$22 $14.95

The Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights

The Anti-Federalists, those who opposed the Constitution, argued that it did not contain a Bill of Rights. They believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, rather than a federal one. They argued that without a Bill of Rights, the federal government would become tyrannous.

The Federalists, supporters of the Constitution, initially argued against the necessity of a Bill of Rights. James Madison, for example, feared that a Bill of Rights would limit the people's rights. However, they eventually promised to add amendments to the Constitution specifically protecting individual liberties.

The Bill of Rights is a list of constitutional amendments that secure the basic rights and privileges of American citizens. They include 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 Anti-Federalists' arguments were not in vain, as the Bill of Rights was eventually adopted, and in 1791, the Constitution's first ten amendments became the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights was inspired by Thomas Jefferson, who argued:

> A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.

The Bill of Rights was drafted by James Madison and proposed by Congress in 1789. It was written to address the objections raised by the Anti-Federalists and to guarantee personal freedoms, such as freedom of speech, the right to publish, practice religion, and assemble.

The Constitution would consolidate power in a national government

The Anti-Federalists—those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution—argued that the Constitution would consolidate power in a national government, taking power away from the states. They believed that the new Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress, at the expense of the states.

The Anti-Federalists' views were shaped by their experience with the British monarchy. They believed that concentrating distinct governmental powers in a single entity would subject the nation's people to arbitrary and oppressive government action. They argued that the unitary president resembled a monarch, and that this resemblance would eventually produce courts of intrigue in the nation's capital.

The Anti-Federalists also believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, rather than a federal one. They were concerned that the federal government would become tyrannous without a Bill of Rights. They wanted to protect the rights retained by the people and preserve the states' power over their citizens.

To address these concerns, the Framers of the Constitution sought to ensure that a separate and independent branch of the Federal Government would exercise each of the government's three basic functions: legislative, executive, and judicial. This is known as the separation of powers. The Federalists—those who supported the ratification of the Constitution—argued that a centralized republic provided the best solution for the future.

Frequently asked questions