Constitutional Arguments

Government Paper One

When the Constitution was written two factions developed during the ratification process. The Federalist's were staunch supporters of the Constitution as it was. The Anti-federalists wanted the Constitution to contain stronger restrictions on the National government and wanted a Bill of Rights added. In thinking about this paper I tried to decided what I side I would have fallen on during the Constitution debates. After some thought, I came to the conclusion that I would have been an Anti-federalist.

Anti-federalists have generally been associated with being proponents of states rights. They tended to view the national government with suspicion; as a group that needed to be carefully monitored or else they would take advantage of their rights. This train of thought makes sense. The more power a body is given, the more likely that person will take advantage of that power. This just comes down to human nature. Since we have a sinful nature we will not tend to think of others first. Instead the desire for more power overtakes any type of moral standing we may possess.

The Anti-federalists' main issue was the lack of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The Federalist's were saying that there was no need for a Bill of Rights, that the national government would make sure that those rights were handed down to the people. Obviously the Federalists had a better opinion of the national government than the Anti-Federalists. I would not describe myself as someone who does not trust her government, but I am a bit leery of this an ideology that people will do what it is right.

I think most people in my generation take this same view. Unfortunately in the past few decades our government has not given us much reason to trust that we the people are always getting the fair deal out of a law or bill or situation. Events like the Kennedy assassination, Watergate, the 911 commission, and the war in Iraq have all contributed to me being a little skeptical that my government is always looking out for me and doing the right thing.

The Federalist's were wearing rose colored glasses when they pictured their national government. I do not see how, when you consider human nature, these men could have possibly thought that the government for all of time would never become corrupt, always give the rates to the states they deserved, and never abuse their power. The Anti-Federalists may have been seen as too cynical or just out and out crazy, but I think that they were right on target.

For instance, I live in New Jersey. New Jersey is a small state but is very densely populated. The northern part of the state is home to many people who travel into New York City every day to work. It is situated between three major metropolitan areas; New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington DC. I do not see how some big shot in Washington can decide what kind of rights my states deserve. By giving the federal government complete control over its citizen's rights, and the ability to trump over a state's power, the Federalists were walking on dangerous ground. Without ensuring state's rights, the Federalists almost insured a suppression of said rights.

I think that a perfect example of this can be found in the recent news. A company from the United Arab Emigrates had put in an offer to take over some major ports in the United States one such port being in New Jersey. The president, without consulting Congress gave his approval of the business deal. Congress was outraged and began the make moves to pass legislation that would prevent this from taking place. The president responded by saying that he would veto any such legislation.

Now under a pure Federalist Constitution the President would get full jurisdiction over this matter. Sure he has Congress and the Supreme Court as his checks and balances, but there are ways for him to get around such checks as seen in his threat to veto. Therefore what is going to stop the President? The answer is the states. New Jersey has stated that if such a business deal goes through that they will sue the federal government. The state's basis for suing is based on the United Arab Emigrates having suspected ties with terrorists; New Jersey will have to step up its security. With a purely Federalist constitution, the states would not have had such a way of keeping a check on the President. The Anti- Federalists knew the states themselves knew what was best in their own state. They wanted to give the states a chance to protect themselves when the federal government became too intrusive.

Another main issue the Anti- Federalists had besides states rights was the lack of a Bill of Rights. It is hard to imagine our constitution without those first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Again the Federalists did not see the need for such a bill. In their minds it was unnecessary to list such rights as freedom of speech, the right to a speedy trial, and freedom of religion. In their minds everyone had these rights and no governing figure would ever stoop to such abuse as to attempt to take those rights away.

I do not wish to beat into the ground that big government is untrustworthy. Rather, it is a simple case of knowing human nature. We are sinful people who do not always do what is right even when the right option it very obvious. I think that for the Federalists to assume that no abuse of power would