does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly given?

[Unitedwestand13]

first let me quote a passage from a well known legal document:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

and here is another passage from a similar legal document:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

the first passage is from the tenth amendment of the united states Constitution, the second passage is from the Articles of confederation, the document that preceded the constitution.

the reason why i bring these two documents up is because i want to challenge the constitutional experts on the forum, specifically on their interpretation of the tenth amendment.

for context i will bring up a article printed by the Atlantic magazine from two years ago.

Constitutional Myth #7: The 10th Amendment Protects 'States' Rights' - Garrett Epps - The Atlantic

before anyone criticises me for posting a troll article meant to incite rage among strict constitutionalists, here is part of their arguement in the article.

Lee is a "Tenther," part of a new extremist movement that seeks to brand all major federal legislation -- not only labor regulation, but environmental laws, gun control laws, and Social Security and Medicare -- as violations of the "rights" of states as supposedly spelled out in the Tenth Amendment. Senator Jim DeMint last year phrased it this way: "the Tenth Amendment says powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution go to the states or to the people."

Is he right? Let's look at the text, which reads, in its entirety:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Notice that DeMint, like a lot of "Tenthers," managed to sneak a word in that the Framers didn't write.

The word is "explicitly." Nothing in the Tenth Amendment says that powers -- such as power to regulate child labor as part of commerce, for example -- must be explicitly or expressly given to the federal government. Compare the language of the Articles of Confederation:

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

When the First Congress adapted this repealed provision as an amendment to the new Constitution, a few important words didn't make the cut. The Articles were familiar to every member of the First Congress. It seems hard to believe that they meant to copy the language but accidentally left some of it out.

What does the omission of the word "expressly" suggest?

Since the Amendment was adopted, constitutional thinkers have concluded that the express powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution necessarily carry with them the "implied" powers needed to carry them out.

If "implied power" sounds like tricky lawyer talk, ask yourself the following question: Is the American flag unconstitutional? The Constitution doesn't make any reference to a national flag. By the "express" argument, states and only states would retain what we might call "the flag power." The U.S. Army would have to march under a congeries of the fifty state flags, depending on the origin of each unit. That would be cumbersome, confusing, and dangerous -- and more to the point, stupid. Congress can "raise and support armies." A country that has an explicit power to raise an army has the implied power to designate a flag. Nobody seriously reads a Constitution any other way.

does any one think the article makes a fair point, or do you think it is making **** up?

 

[Master PO]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

Hamilton on limited government federalist 83;



Having now seen that the maxims relied upon will not bear the use made of them, let us endeavor to ascertain their proper use and true meaning. This will be best done by examples. The plan of the[constitutional] convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the national legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars [18 powers] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

Hamilton on limited government federalist 83;



Having now seen that the maxims relied upon will not bear the use made of them, let us endeavor to ascertain their proper use and true meaning. This will be best done by examples. The plan of the[constitutional] convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the national legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars [18 powers] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.

Barkmann, would you please explain in your own words why Hamilton's quote in federalist 83 disproves the argument made by the author of the article in the Atlantic? humor me

 

[Lutherf]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

The whole purpose of the Constitution was to establish a central government which would serve as a framework to regulate anticipated disputes between the states and to unite the states for the purpose of international affairs. It was also established to limit that government to just those things thus preserving the sovereignty of the individual states and the citizens of those states.

While certain of the founders believed that more or less power at the federal level would be beneficial in the long run they all pretty much agreed that opening a door for the return of monarchical (or otherwise direct) rule was undesirable.

 

[Master PO]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

Barkmann, would you please explain in your own words why Hamilton's quote in federalist 83 disproves the argument made by the author of the article in the Atlantic? humor me

Hamilton is making the case, that BECAUSE the federal government, only has delegated powers and that is all, the federal government is incapable of violating the rights of the people.

because none of the delegated powers of congress, intersect with the individual citizen.

the only power congress has over a citizen, is if a citizen counterfeits money, commits piracy , or treason. because congress has authority over money, U.S. waters, meaning the high seas, and if a person were to collude with a foreign government against the U.S.

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

other than these three things, the congress has no authority over the American citizen of the original constitution.

with the 16th...tax cheats fall under federal authority.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

Hamilton is making the case, that BECAUSE the federal government, only has delegated powers and that is all, the federal government is incapable of violating the rights of the people.

because none of the delegated powers of congress, intersect with the individual citizen.

the only power congress has over a citizen, is if citizen counterfeits money, commits piracy , or treason. because congress has authority over money, U.S. waters, meaning the high seas, and if a person were to collude with a foreign government against the U.S.

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

is Hamilton arguing in the context of the constitution, or in the context of the articles of confederation?

do you notice that the tenth amendment does not use the words "explicitly or expressly" in its description of what powers are delegated to the federal government? that is one of the major differences between the u.s constitution and the articles of confederation, the founding fathers removed the language that limited the federal governments powers to those that are "expressly" delegated to it. they removed the word "Expressly" in order to remove one of the flaws that plagued the article's of confederation.

now why did the founding fathers remove the that specific word "expressly", and did not include it in the tenth amendment?

 

[Dezaad]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

I think it is bizarre that anyone would make any other argument than that the 10th limits the power of the Federal Government to the enumerated powers. Whenever a Federal law is challenged based on enumerated powers, I can't think of a Supreme Court ruling that doesn't at least attempt to tie the law to some enumerated power. It seems to me that it always has. We may not agree with the reasoning that puts certain laws under an enumerated power, but I don't think I have ever heard of a Supreme Court ruling that has ever said "Meh, the Federal Government has powers outside the enumerated ones, so it can do what it wants". There have been rulings that quite nearly amount to this, but nothing that has been so bold as to state it thus.

In other words, it seems to me that the enumerated powers idea is so entwined with The Constitution that no serious frontal assault on it can be entertained, and still remain within any vestige of reason.

As to the article. The word explicit is not required for the 10th to clearly mean explicit. People only add the word so that people who don't have an understanding of English word and syntactical meaning can get the right idea. It is obvious that if the Founding Fathers and Founding Citizens had agreed to greater powers, they would certainly have worded the 10th differently as there are clearly other ways to have expressed such a desire. Or they would have left it out altogether. In addition, the history of the argumentation surrounding the 10th is clear, both before and after the vote on The Constitution.

 

[Master PO]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

is Hamilton arguing in the context of the constitution, or in the context of the articles of confederation?

do you notice that the tenth amendment does not use the words "explicitly or expressly" in its description of what powers are delegated to the federal government? that is one of the major differences between the u.s constitution and the articles of confederation, the founding fathers removed the language that limited the federal governments powers to those that are "expressly" delegated to it. they removed the word "Expressly" in order to remove one of the flaws that plagued the article's of confederation.

now why did the founding fathers remove the that specific word "expressly", and did not include it in the tenth amendment?

I do not know why you believe that word makes some kind of difference.

the founders state many times the federal government is limited,....what does limited to you mean, when they say it?

Hamilton is against a bill of rights, he believes one is not needed at all, and he declares the constitution itself a bill of rights in federalist 84, and he is stating that because the federal government cannot act outside its delegated powers.

federalist 84--I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed.

Hamilton is saying why have a bill of rights, when the federal government has no power granted, no authority to do........meaning they only have delegated powers.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

I think it is bizarre that anyone would make any other argument than that the 10th limits the power of the Federal Government to the enumerated powers. Whenever a Federal law is challenged based on enumerated powers, I can't think of a Supreme Court ruling that doesn't at least attempt to tie the law to some enumerated power. It seems to me that it always has. We may not agree with the reasoning that puts certain laws under an enumerated power, but I don't think I have ever heard of a Supreme Court ruling that has ever said "Meh, the Federal Government has powers outside the enumerated ones, so it can do what it wants". There have been rulings that quite nearly amount to this, but nothing that has been so bold as to state it thus.

In other words, it seems to me that the enumerated powers idea is so entwined with The Constitution that no serious frontal assault on it can be entertained, and still remain within any vestige of reason.

As to the article. The word explicit is not required for the 10th to clearly mean explicit. People only add the word so that people who don't have an understanding of English word and syntactical meaning can get the right idea. It is obvious that if the Founding Fathers and Founding Citizens had agreed to greater powers, they would certainly have worded the 10th differently as there are clearly other ways to have expressed such a desire. Or they would have left it out altogether. In addition, the history of the argumentation surrounding the 10th is clear, both before and after the vote on The Constitution.

then that brings me to Mcculloch V Maryland and the opinion written by Chief justice John Marshall.

The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason; the people have, in express terms, decided it by saying, "this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof," "shall be the supreme law of the land," and by requiring that the members of the State legislatures and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the States shall take the oath of fidelity to it. The Government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments.

and in case any of you think i am being dishonest in quoting John Marshall then hear is the link i quoted from.

McCulloch v. Maryland - 17 U.S. 316 (1819) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

and the link where i found the previous link.

McCulloch v. Maryland | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

now is john Marshall wrong in his interpretation of the constitution, or is my interpretation of john Marshall's opinion wrong?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

I do not know why you believe that word makes some kind of difference.

the founders state many times the federal government is limited,....what does limited to you mean, when they say it?

Hamilton is against a bill of rights, he believes one is not needed at all, and he declares the constitution itself a bill of rights in federalist 84, and he is stating that because the federal government cannot act outside its delegated powers.

federalist 84--I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed.

Hamilton is saying why have a bill of rights, when the federal government has no power granted, no authority to do........meaning they only have delegated powers.

Barkman i know you keep arguing from the perspective of the federalists papers, but the importance of the omitting of the word "expressly" from the tenth ammendment is a key factor in the ruling of McCulloch V Maryland.

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."

McCulloch v. Maryland | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

now i don't know if James Madison had wrote about things that occured after he ended his terms as president, but if he i wonder what would have thought about the ruling of the supreme court.

 

[Dezaad]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

then that brings me to Mcculloch V Maryland and the opinion written by Chief justice John Marshall.



and in case any of you think i am being dishonest in quoting John Marshall then hear is the link i quoted from.

McCulloch v. Maryland - 17 U.S. 316 (1819) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

and the link where i found the previous link.

McCulloch v. Maryland | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

now is john Marshall wrong in his interpretation of the constitution, or is my interpretation of john Marshall's opinion wrong?

He is still making an appeal to enumerated powers, and merely saying that the enumerated ones imply others in so far as the enumerated ones will necessarily require others in order to have any meaning. This is not the same as saying "Meh, the government is not limited to enumerated powers". I don't think even Ernst is saying that there are no implied powers tied to the enumerated ones. I would venture that the writer of the article has misunderstood "Tenther's" arguments, but I will let Ernst speak to that.

Ernst: Do you agree that, for example, the Federal Government has the authority to designate by law a flag to represent the United States? And, furthermore, that The Constitution does not explicitly grant this authority? And finally, that the authority is derived by implication from other enumerated powers? Please, if the flag issue doesn't fit the main thrust of my point, please examine your own reasonings to determine whether there is any implied power at all that you believe the Federal Government holds?

So, I guess, yes: Myself, I agree that the OP article author has a fair "point". I just don't believe that any serious people actually hold that there are ZERO implied powers, even if they don't label them such. I would imagine that there are some who want certain powers to accrue to the Federal authority, and try to say there is explicit authority granted, when in fact the reason for granting it is a reasoning that relies on implication.

 

[Master PO]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

Barkman i know you keep arguing from the perspective of the federalists papers, but the importance of the omitting of the word "expressly" from the tenth ammendment is a key factor in the ruling of McCulloch V Maryland.



McCulloch v. Maryland | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

now i don't know if James Madison had wrote about things that occured after he ended his terms as president, but if he i wonder what would have thought about the ruling of the supreme court.

if the government had implied powers, which your making the case, this would essentially let them do anything they choose to do, and if that were the case, then the founders would have created a national government.............. and not a federal one, which gives us federalism. a separation of powers.

 

[Moot]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

Very interesting. Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Unitedwestand13.


The Tenth doesn't say anything about state sovereignty or rights, either. It also says United States and instead federal government, suggesting the States will always remain United by the Constitution.



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

if the government had implied powers, which your making the case, this would essentially let them do anything they choose to do, and if that were the case, then the founders would have created a national government.............. and not a federal one, which gives us federalism. a separation of powers.

so you are saying that supreme court justice john Marshall was wrong in his opinion that the congress has unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, which he stated in the courts opinion of McCulloch V maryland?

why is john marshall wrong in your opinion

 

[Master PO]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

He is still making an appeal to enumerated powers, and merely saying that the enumerated ones imply others in so far as the enumerated ones will necessarily require others in order to have any meaning. This is not the same as saying "Meh, the government is not limited to enumerated powers". I don't think even Ernst is saying that there are no implied powers tied to the enumerated ones. I would venture that the writer of the article has misunderstood "Tenther's" arguments, but I will let Ernst speak to that.

Ernst: Do you agree that, for example, the Federal Government has the authority to designate by law a flag to represent the United States? And, furthermore, that The Constitution does not explicitly grant this authority? And finally, that the authority is derived by implication from other enumerated powers? Please, if the flag issue doesn't fit the main thrust of my point, please examine your own reasonings to determine whether there is any implied power at all that you believe the Federal Government holds?

So, I guess, yes: Myself, I agree that the OP article author has a fair "point". I just don't believe that any serious people actually hold that there are ZERO implied powers, even if they don't label them such. I would imagine that there are some who want certain powers to accrue to the Federal authority, and try to say there is explicit authority granted, when in fact the reason for granting it is a reasoning that relies on implication.

the government has the power to make all laws for the foregoing powers. of article 1 section 8

so as an example the government is in charge of money, therefore it can make laws which concern the creation of money.

but there is no education in the constitution at all, therefore it cannot make any laws about education.

the flag ; the federal government has total authority in d.c. ...the seat of the federal government, and to create a flag for that district.

the states recognize the federal government and its delegated powers and the seat of power d.c....listed in A1 S8

the u.s. flag can be flown by individuals if they choose, however it was created for the federal government and meant to fly over federal buildings in states where the federal government and the states agree.

under constitutional law the congress has no authority but in d.c. or federal buildings in states, this from article 1 section 8 clause 17.

 

[Master PO]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

very interesting. Thanks for bringing that to our attention, unitedwestand13.


the tenth doesn't say anything about state sovereignty or rights, either. It also says united states and instead federal government, suggesting the states will always remain united by the constitution.



the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

the united states in the constution means the fedeeal government........this from constution teachings.

You need to read federalist 39, if you think states are not sovergin
.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

the united states in the constution means the fedeeal government........this from constution teachings.

You need to read federalist 39, if you think states are not sovergin
.

but are the states sovereign as defined by the articles of confederation?

 

[Master PO]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

so you are saying that supreme court justice john Marshall was wrong in his opinion that the congress has unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, which he stated in the courts opinion of McCulloch V maryland?

why is john marshall wrong in your opinion

maybe your be confused by the ability for the congress to make all laws for the foregoing powers?

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers[delegated powers], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[Master PO]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

but are the states sovereign as defined by the articles of confederation?

federalist 39 Madison- Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.

 

[Master PO]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

but are the states sovereign as defined by the articles of confederation?

from going from the articles to the constitution, the states gave up some of their powers which were causing a problems for the confederation.

money creation, causing inflation.

commerce ...causing trade wars and barriers.

lack of central authority of the government to enforce its laws, and the articles could not be amended unless all states agreed, and this cause problems to.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

maybe your be confused by the ability for the congress to make all laws for the foregoing powers?

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers[delegated powers], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

and in Mcculloch v maryland, the supreme court made it's ruling on the case by applying article 1, section 8, clause's 1 and 18 of the u.s Constitution.

again, was john Marshall wrong in his ruling?

 

[Dezaad]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

and in Mcculloch v maryland, the supreme court made it's ruling on the case by applying article 1, section 8, clause's 1 and 18 of the u.s Constitution.

again, was john Marshall wrong in his ruling?

You are asking the wrong question. Ernst could still believe Marshall to be wrong in his ruling and still hold that there are implied powers.

As far as I am concerned he has already stipulated that there are. He doesn't seem to want to state it, however. Probably because he also seems to believe that what constitutes an implied power should be tightly construed, which would be no surprise at all.

 

[Master PO]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

and in Mcculloch v maryland, the supreme court made it's ruling on the case by applying article 1, section 8, clause's 1 and 18 of the u.s Constitution.

again, was john Marshall wrong in his ruling?

in the teaching of constitutional law, is the there are foregoing powers, which the government can exercise, however to say they are implied powers, to act at will, [necessary and proper], is an injustice to the constitution itself.

during the constitutional convention, the argument of the anti-federalist was the constitution give to much powers to the government, which was rejected by the federalist like Hamilton, saying that government was limited because of its delegates powers.

Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction. Madison, federalist 40

 

[Master PO]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

You are asking the wrong question. Ernst could still believe Marshall to be wrong in his ruling and still hold that there are implied powers.

As far as I am concerned he has already stipulated that there are. He doesn't seem to want to state it, however. Probably because he also seems to believe that what constitutes an implied power should be tightly construed, which would be no surprise at all.

answer for me..... what are implied powers in your mind....what do they mean to you?

 

[Moot]

Re: does the tenth ammendment say federal powers must be explicitly or expressly give

the united states in the constution means the fedeeal government........this from constution teachings.

You need to read federalist 39, if you think states are not sovergin
.

Have you read Federalist No. 84? It argues "against" a Bill of Rights. Obviously, that essay had little influence. If you think the states are sovereign you should read the "Supremacy Clause" in the Constitution.



BTW, Federalists are pro strong central government. Have you read the Anti-Federalist Papers?



"...The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals; those that claimed a new centralized, disguised "monarchic" power that would only replace the cast-off despotism of Great Britain with the proposed government; and those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties.

Some of the opposition believed that the central government under the Articles of Confederation was sufficient. Still others believed that while the national government under the Articles was too weak, the national government under the Constitution would be too strong. Another complaint of the Anti-Federalists was that the Constitution provided for a centralized rather than Federal Government (and in the Federalist papers James Madison admits that the new Constitution has the characteristics of both a centralized and federal form of the government) and that a truly federal form of government was a leaguing of states as under the Articles of Confederation....."

Anti-Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Anti-Federalists lost the debate and a Constitution favoring the Federalists was ratified. The Founding fathers wanted a strong central government.