Were the Anti-Federalists Correct Was the 1787 Constitution a Betrayal of the American Revolution - Essay Example

History and Political Science 18 September Were the Anti-Federalists Correct? Was the 1787 Constitution a Betrayal of the American Revolution? Why or Why not? Why the Federalists’ Opposition was Correct The founding fathers of federalism for United States of America had great expectation and a desire for a functional government, to maintain order in the nation. The push and the predicted effects of the constitution however created opposing forces to the ratification of the U.S. constitution. The federalists strongly supported the constitution and its formation of the central government because the formerly relied confederation articles were ineffective, and a strong national government would be able to control uncooperative states and excess powers of foreign policies that affected the U.S., and protect the right of its people who had delegated their powers back to the government. The anti-federalists had raised several objections over the approval of the constitution by the states and their population with respect to the envisioned ramifications, arguing that it would burden Americans in their future. Earlier on, the anti-federalist warned that State power would be threatened by a strong national government, where the centre of gravity would shift to the national government (“Antifederalists” gps.edu). Although power sharing between the national and States’ government was supported by both, the risk of giving too much power as supremacy to the national government at the expense of the States would be high. Considering the challenges facing the new republic, federal opposition “insisted that the freedom won by the Revolution would be best preserved not by expanding the power of the national government but by tightly circumscribing its power” (Mooney 51).Today, certain States legislatures like the Labor Laws cannot contradict the federal government action permitted by the constitution on the same. It is evident that the central government acquired more powers and duties through the constitution than when using the article of confederation. Federalists also warned that the development of a central government through the constitution would pave way for repression of people’s liberty and their rights (“Antifederalists” gps.edu). The anti-federalists objections pushed federalists to include a bill of rights to guarantee civil liberties to the people. The aim of the opposition on the bill of rights was to limit the powers of the central government to prevent intrusion into the state powers. To both of the parties’ achievements, the bill was later adopted and the few states which were reluctant to ratify the constitution became convinced. First of all, the 10th amendment of the constitution only clarified the existing enumeration powers of the federal government, but refused to adjust its powers to make a change. As a result, the States felt obliged to support the constitution, due to the assurance of the tenth amendment, which confirmed that powers not delegated to the central government would reside with the respective States (Mooney 58). In other words, it was a meander to achieve support of the states by limiting the federal government the right to interfere with individuals and not the state. Nothing was new because individuals were already protected by the bill of rights in the respective States constitutions; the only change was its further inclusion in the national constitution, yet the federal powers over war, taxes, commerce, and implied powers were not restricted by the amendment (Dry 5). Today everyone realizes and sympathizes with the anti- federalist opposition for their fear of constitution to leave out the bill of rights that turned out to be very essential. Even with the 1st enactment of the bill of rights, suppressive scenarios like the approval of the Alien and Sedition Acts that threatened foreigners’ liberty, and seriously limited freedom of speech and especially of the press affirmed anti-federalist argument. The inclusion of the bill of rights may have generated other unpredicted problems, but at least, the first nine amendments have with time proved its importance along the past centuries to date in guaranteeing freedom of worship, speech and the press, protection against unreasonable and cruel punishment, and unlawful search and seizure. With the increasing opportunities of the States and federal government to infringe the bill of rights, individuals’ liberties have continuously been protected. The establishment and the continuous amendment of the bill of rights have all along played an active role in solving public policy difficulties. It facilitated the abolition of the rooted slavery institution, assisted in resolving issues to do with capital punishment, and drug tests in the19th and 20th century respectively. The American’s lives and liberty would probably be ridicule without a bill of rights in the constitution considering the trend of central government growth in power. Over time, various policies have been reached by the consent of the majority, but the bill of rights has secured individuals liberty beyond the reach and tyranny of majority and government rulers; a prove of the great necessity of the bill of rights demanded by the anti-federalists. The judiciary was placed in charge of putting a legal check on the individual rights in the bill of rights, which essentially reinforced the national constitution, but reflected a danger of using the judiciary branch to increase the federal government power. Brutus, an anti-federalist argued in his 11th and 14th paper that the federal courts would become a source of massive abuse by exercising judicial tyranny, because they had supreme authority to control the legislature and the individuals; the judiciary would decide and develop their grounds for making ruling to cases arising under the construction of constitution and would interpret the constitution according to its reasoning spirit (Lackner freerepublic.com). History in the U.S. has witnessed how the legislative proceedings are pushed by the rulings made in the constitutionality of law. The original meaning of the constitution intended by the framers has in most cases been altered to invoke new principles, so as to impose preferential policies. In rulings, certain cases end up being overturned simply because the verdict delivered reflects the voice and will of the judge and not true reflection of the constitution. However, much of Brutus argument can be refuted for the fact that the Americans have been able to limit the judicial power, and review and call for changes in the system. Today, the supreme court of the U.S. hears all appeals brought forth and has the power to uphold previous verdict or reverse it after the hearings. Was the 1787 Constitution a Betrayal of the American Revolution? Yes. The revolutionary effort in America had begun earlier and culminated in the American revolutionary war of 1775 to around 1783. Previously, there had been build up tension between the British colonial government and the Great Britain North American colonies. The British crown had passed along the Stamp Act to raise their revenue through taxation of colonies’ legal and commercial documents, which intimidated colonies and later paved way for the protesting and laying out their grievances (“American revolution” history.com). From the period of 1765 to approximately 1770, the British colony attempted to force their authority on the colonies in different Acts, to assert their power and control. The first violence was experienced in 1770 when the colonies resisted the demand and humiliation of the British rule, which left a number of men dead in what believed to be the Boston Massacre (American revolution” history.com). Later on before the 1776, war broke colonies delegates were to meet in Philadelphia, where only five representatives attended. The first congress meeting was not effective enough to convince colonies to demand for their independence, but laid a platform where it managed to denounce British rule and their taxation, without the colonies consent and representation respectively and the denial of individual right to colonies. The Northern part of America and especially states like Massachusetts, Philadelphia, New England, and New York always experienced the worst wrath of colonial power, due to their increased aggressiveness in resistance. The radicals led to a draft of a radical framework of government through a self authorized state constitutional convention, leading to formation of a continental army and declaration of the American independence in the second congress meeting. The Common sense pamphlet written by Thomas Paine was an influential document that shaped debates surrounding Americans’ independence, by denouncing the British Monarchy, criticizing its advisors and parliament to favor American revolution and desire for freedom (Mooney 35). The 13 colonies fought war against the British army and despite of their serious sufferings due to lack strong, regular, and experienced army like the British colony, the British gradually left, but after a period of continuous unrest that the continental army did not relent. Though the American nationalists and the radicals had come together in fight for independence and revolution, their original intentions caused a difference on their desires of what a central government constituted, and the ultimate effect was a concession of the federalist and the anti-federalist interests in the previous conventions. The earlier adopted article of confederation in the course of 1781had brought the states closer, through a national government that had been established to administer relation with the Amerindians residing off the states, regulate the interstate and foreign relations, and declare war. Contrary to the powers given to the federal government in the 1787 constitution, the confederation article aimed at forming a nation state with less power as it was more of states’ government alliance. It “imposed limitations on the power of the national government,” and beyond the powers allocated to it, “the article granted relatively little authority” (Mooney 38). The article had been amended severally and given other interpretations for the intended federal government before it was taken to the states. For the ratification of the 1787 constitution, the states had been expecting an amendment of clause in the confederation article that clarified the relationship and powers vested to the states and central government. Madison skillfully amended the clause vesting powers not delegated to the federal government back to the states, which meant that the extended rights to the states relied on how much rights and powers the national government had in the first place, being granted by the constitution, while ensuring that no one part of the national government power was detracted (Hummel and Marina, independent.org). A strong national government was enabled by the constitution that threatened protection of individual rights by claiming the constitution already protected them through the government, when they delegated their powers to it. According to Zavodnyik, Americans were giving away their right of self governance when they allowed the congress more power than the parliament and the crown exercised (15). Were it not for the anti-federalists who pushed the federalists to limit and clarify the power of the national government and make clear how the constitution would operate in practice, a similar excessive authority they fought to replace would have been rebuilt internally. So far, the existing federal powers still reside with the three arms of the government, yet there is a need to take it back to the people through the states for purposes of revolution and democracy. No. On the other hand, the inceptions of the constitution and amendments such as the 13 and 14th ones on the bill of right have tried to balance the powers within the states and federal government. The constitution has evolved and the states are united to execute the economic and political policies to support respective states and the federal government. Commerce and economic activities within states and between states have progressed, especially with the upholding of the individuals’ liberty and property rights, as established in the bill of rights. Contrary to what many would object, the constitution has developed and changed repetitively to advance and support the majority of initial American ideals established in the 1776. Nonetheless, the modern society should understand that the federal government is the highest enforcement of the law in collaboration with the States. The long feared factor ‘standing armies’ the constitution opposition and proponents had doubt over, has been an instrument of restoring calm and peace in its defensive role to the United States of America. Works Cited “American Revolution.” history.com. n.d. Web. 19 Sep, 2013. “Antifederalists vs Federalists” gps.edu. n.d. Web. 18 Sep, 2013. Dry, M. “The Constitutional Thought of Anti-federalist.” apsanet.org.1985.Web. 19 Sep, 2013 Hummel, J. R and William F. Marina “Did the Constitution Betray the constitution?” independent.org. I Jan, 1981. Web. 19 Sep, 2013 Lackner, S. W.”The Anti-federalists were Right: Predicting the Most “Arbitrary Government” from the Supreme Court. freerepublic.com. 11 Aug, 2012. Web. 18 Sep, 2013.  Mooney, M. The Growth of American Civilization. California: SBCC, 2013. Print.  Zavodnyik, P. The Age of Strict Construction: A History of the Growth of Federal Power 1789-1861. Washington DC: CUA press, 2007. Print. Read More