Suspicion
of centralized authority has deep roots in American history. This distrust has
generally been counterbalanced by a remarkable faith in the abilities of state
and local governments. One of the great ironies of American history is that the
Constitution was framed by the Federalists, the proponents of a stronger
central government. Their opponents, the Anti-Federalists, were defeated in one
of the greatest political struggles in American history. Ratification of the
Constitution did not, however, eliminate Anti-Federalist ideas: localism
continues to be a powerful force in American life.
If
the structure of American government was crafted by Federalists, the spirit of
American politics has more often been inspired by the Anti-Federalists. Indeed,
the struggle between the Federalist Founders and the dissenting voices of the
Anti-Federalists, the Other Founders of the American constitutional tradition,
continues to define the nature of political life.
The
nature of federalism created a problematic that all opponents of the
Constitution were forced to grapple with: how to preserve the autonomy of the
states and localities within a federal system that would command citizen
allegiance. The difficulty was how to achieve this goal without endowing a
strong central government with considerable coercive authority.
The
Virginia and Kentucky resolutions focused attention on the constitutional means
available to citizens and states to challenge unlawful exercises of federal
power. (Nullification)
Elbridge
Gerry published his objections to the Constitution on Nov. 3, 1787, in the
Massachusetts Centinel, one of the most re-printed Anti-Federalist essays ever.
The objections/criticisms were:
1
The omission of a bill of rights
2
The consolidationist/nationalist character of the new government
3
The charge of aristocracy
4
Concerns about taxation
5
Fears about the creation of a standing army
The
Antifederalists were critics of the Constitution drafted by the Framers and
submitted to the states for ratification in 1787. Some Antifederalists were
unconditionally opposed to adopting the Constitution, while others demanded
amendments or pressed for a second convention to correct the "errors"
of the first. They were not (as the name "Antifederalist" suggests)
opposed to a federal system of government – indeed, they claimed to be the
"true Federalists" – but they believed the proposed Constitution gave
too much power to the national authority and left too little to the states.
Ultimately, they feared a "consolidated" government that would
"swallow up" the states and subvert the liberties of the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment