Page 2 - Ratification Debates News Today

In his series of 18 letters, Federal Farmer repeatedly warned about the dangers of centralized power, predicting that the proposed government would end in “the destruction of freedom.” Path to Liberty: August 14, 2023

If you want to understand the Constitution - its original, legal meaning - don’t rely exclusively, or even primarily on the Federalist Papers. You’ll want to read other federalists like James Wilson, Tench Coxe and John Dickinson, plus the leading Anti-federalists as well.

Focusing on the debate over enumerated powers, this article challenges the unfounded assumptions of Federalist objectivity and Anti-Federalist irrelevance and models the historical method necessary to interpret the ratification debates rigorously.

Unlimited power. Robbery. Consolidation. Anti-federalists repeatedly warned that a federal power of direct taxation would destroy liberty.

It should be obvious by now that the executive branch wields far too much power. This kind of consolidation was considered one of the greatest threats to liberty. Some warned that the system wouldn’t self-enforce and predicted the “elective despotism” we live under today.

In a series of speeches during the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry warned that despite arguments to the contrary, the federal government wouldn’t act like its powers were only those delegated to it. Instead, it would act like all others before it - all powers are granted except those expressly reserved.

During the debates over ratification of the Constitution, Anti-Federalists repeatedly warned about the dangers of too much power. One of their prominent arguments centered around the maxim that once power expands, people with power never seem to voluntarily give it back.

Michael J. Faber’s profile on The Conversation

Responding to Federalist claims that rejecting ratification would lead to danger, chaos and potential ruin, Patrick Henry took the other side, “it is the fortune of a free people not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers” and urged the addition of a bill of rights first.

. Having followed the Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court nominee hearings, I find it not only astounding that one of the most important lines of