Anti-Federalist Paper # 46 (On the Elastic Clause)

. . . We find here that the Congress will have the power to make and collect taxes; to
borrow money; to make laws about trade; to make citizenship laws and the laws of
bankruptcy; to print and coin money; to punish counterfeiters; to establish post offices
and post roads; to secure copy rights to authors; to define and punish piracy; to declare
war; to raise and support armies; to provide and support a navy; to call up the militia; to
organize, arm and discipline the militia; to exercise absolute power over a district ten
miles square (the capitol city), independent of all the State governments, and to be
absolute over all forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings
belonging to the government. This is a short summary of the powers given to Congress . .
My purpose is to consider that undefined, unbounded and massive power which is
stated in the following clauseAnd to make all laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested
by this constitution in the government of the United States; or in any department or
offices thereof. Under such a clause as this, can anything be kept back from
Congress? . . . Besides the powers already mentioned, Congress can take other
powers because of this clause. The Congress will be the judge of what is necessary
and proper in all these cases, and in all other casesin short, in all cases
whatsoever.
Then where is the restraint? How is Congress limited to the powers specifically
given? What powers are not given, or cant be given? And this isnt all, by the sixth
article of the Constitution it is stated that this Constitution and the laws of the United
States and the laws that will be made in it, and all treaties made, or will be made, under
the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in
every state will be held to them, any thing in the state constitutions or laws of any state
that go against the Constitution will not count. Congress is therefore vested with the
supreme lawmaking power, without control. In giving such massive, such unlimited
powers, shouldnt there be a Bill of Rights, to secure the peoples liberties? Is it not
obvious that we are left completely dependent on the wisdom of the men who will from
time to time be the members of Congress? And who will be able to say seven years from
now, the members of Congress will be wise and good men, or the opposite?

AntiFederalistNo.67Cato#5(OntheExecutiveBranch)
ItissaidbyMontesquieu,intalkingaboutrepublics,thatinallofficesofpublic
officials(thepresident),thegreatnessofthepowermustbebalancedbythe
shortnessoftheduration,andthatalongertimethanayearwouldbe
dangerous.Itis,therefore,obvioustotheleastintelligentmindtounderstand
whygreatpowerinthehandsofapublicofficial(thepresident),andthatpower
connectedwithalongterm,maybedangeroustothelibertiesofarepublic.
Becausepeopleputsomuchtrustintothepresident,theybecomedependenton
him.Thismakeshimwantmorepower,andthetermofhisofficeforanylengthy
amountoftimemakesiteasierforhimtotakemorepower,giveshimthe
opportunityandtimetocarryouthisplans;hethendreamsthathemaybegreat
andgloriousbyabusinghisfellowcitizens,andraisinghimselftopermanent
gloryontheruinsofhiscountryHispowerofnominationandinfluenceon
allappointments;hiscontroloverthearmy,militia,andnavy;the
unrestrainedpowerofgrantingpardonsfortreason,whichmaybeusedto
hidefrompunishmentthosewhomhehadsecretlyencouragedtocommit
crimes,andcanthenpreventhimselffromgettingcaught;hislongtermin
officeforfouryearsthese,andvariousotherprinciplesobviouslyprove
thetruthoftheposition,thatifthepresidenthasambition,hehaspower
andtimeenoughtoruinhiscountry
Andwhereisthispresident,takingintoaccounthispowersandprivileges,
anydifferentfromthekingofGreatBritain?Thepowersofthepresident,
comingfromhisposition,arethefollowing:Itisnecessary,inordertoseparate
himfromtherestofthecountryandtokeeptherespectofhisclosepeople,that
hissalary(pay),shouldbeenoughtomakehimlooklikeaprince.Hehasthe
powerofreceivingambassadorsfrom,andinfluencingtheirappointmentsto
foreigngovernments;andalsotomaketreatiesandallianceswithforeign
countries,assistedbytheSenate,whichwhenmadebecomesthesupremelaw
ofland.Heisanimportantpartofthelegislativebranch,becauseeverybillthatis
passedbytheHouseofRepresentativesandSenateistobepresentedtohim
forapproval.Ifhelikesit,thenhesignsit,ifhedoesntlikeit,hesendsitback
withreasonswhyhedoesntlikeit,whichinmanycaseswillamounttoa
completeNo;andinthisviewhewillhavealotofpowerofmakingpeace,
coiningmoney,etc.,andallthedifferentpowersstatedinthisConstitution.
ItmaybesaidthatthekingofGreatBritainhasthetotalpowerofmaking
peaceorwar,butheneverdoesitwithouttheadviceofhisParliament,
fromwhomhegetshissupportandthereforethesepowers,inboth
presidentandking,areessentiallythesame.Heisthegeneralofthe
nation,andofcoursehasthecommandandcontrolofthearmy,navyand
militia;heisthegeneralprotectorofthepeaceoftheunionhemaypardon

(excuse;forgive)alloffenses,exceptincasesofimpeachment,andhes
themainwaythatpeoplegetgovernmentofficesandjobs.

Anti-Federalist Paper #84 (on the Bill of Rights)

When a building is to be built which is supposed to stand for ages, the
foundation should sturdy. The suggested Constitution is designed, not for yourselves
alone, but for future generations. The principles, therefore, upon which the
Constitution is built, should have been clearly and specifically stated, and the most
clear and full declaration of rights to have been made. But on this subject there is
almost an entire silence.
If we may collect the feelings of the American people, from their own most sacred
declarations (Declaration of Independence), they hold this truth as self-evident, that all
men are by nature free. No one man has the right to have authority over anybody else.
The beginnings of society will be found in the agreement of everybody who joins
together . . . Therefore, the common good is the reason for government, and everyone
agreeing to it is the foundation that it is built on. To do this, it was necessary that a
certain portion of liberty should be given up, so that what liberty remained would
be safe (give up some to keep most) . . . But rulers tend to do the same things as
regular people; they are as likely to use their power for private purposes, and to
take away rights and abuse the people they govern, just like people in a state of
nature injure and abuse one another. It is therefore necessary that their power
should be limited. . .
. . . This principle is a basic one, in all the State Constitutions; there is not one
of them that isnt either founded on a declaration or bill of rights. At a time when
people were desperate for liberty, and when people asked to form Constitutions for their
state governments, it was their common belief, that a bill of rights should be part of their
constitutions. It is, therefore, more surprising, that this bill of rights of the people is not to
be found in this Constitution. . . .
The powers, rights and authority, given to the national government by this
Constitution, are as complete as that of any State governmentit reaches to every thing
which concerns human happinesslife, liberty, and property are under its control. . . . It
is not true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the federal Constitution than in
those of the States, the opposite is obviously true. This system will be an original
agreement; and being the most recent will replace every former agreement that goes
against it. It being a plan of government ratified by the people, all other forms
which exist at the time of its ratification, must give way to it.
. . . Shouldnt a government, given such massive authority, be limited by a
bill of rights? It certainly should. Obviously I cannot help suspect that people who
try to persuade others that such limits were less necessary under this Constitution

than those of the States, are purposely lying, and to trying to lead you into an
absolute state of slavery.

AntiFederalistCentinelNo.1(OnthePoweroftheFederalGovernment)
Iamnowgoingtotalkabouttheproposedplanofgovernment(Constitution),and
Ibelieve,Iwillmakeitcleartoeveryone,thatithasnoneofthebasic
requirementsofafreegovernment
Bysect.8,ofthefirstarticleoftheproposedplanofgovernment,"Congressis
tohavepowertolayandcollecttaxes,duties,impostsandexcises,topaythe
debts(borrowmoney)andprovideforthecommondefenseandgeneral
welfareoftheUnitedStates,butallduties,impostsandexcises,shallbeuniform
throughouttheUnitedStates."Nowwhatcanbemorecomprehensivethanthese
words;notsatisfiedbyothersectionsofthisplan,tograntallthegreatexecutive
powersofaunion,andaSTANDINGARMYINTIMEOFPEACE,whichcreates
tyranny,andalsotheabsolutecontroloverthetradeoftheUnitedStatesand
taxesonallimportsandexportstheyarealsoallowedtotaxthepeople;
whatevertaxestheymayfeelnecessaryforthegeneralwelfare,maybe
imposedonthecitizensofthesestates,imposedbyCongress,distributed
througheverystateinAmerica;andthecollectionwouldbeenforcedby
thestandingarmy,howeversevereorimpropertheymaybe.Congresscan
saythateveryreasonthestategovernmentsimposetaxesisfor
thegeneralwelfare,andtherebytakeeveryobjectofrevenue.
1stsect.ofarticle3"Thejudicialpowershallextendtoallcases,inlawand
justice,regardingthisconstitution,thelawsoftheUnitedStates,andtreaties
madeorwhichshallbemadeundertheirauthority;toallcasesaffecting
ambassadors,otherpublicministersandconsuls;toallcasesofadmiraltyand
maritimejurisdiction,Theobjectsthatthefederalcourtshavepowerover
aresonumerous,andtheshadesofdifferencebetweenfederalandcivil
casesareoftentimessoslight,thatitismorethanprobablethatthestate
courtswouldbecompletelyswallowedup;incasesaboutauthority,the
federalcourt,asthemostpowerful,wouldalwayswin
TomakeclearthesupremacyofCongressoverthestategovernmentandcourts,
the6tharticleordainsthat"thisconstitutionandthelawsoftheUnitedStates

whichshallbemadeinpursuancethereof,andalltreatiesmade,orwhichshall
bemadeundertheauthorityoftheUnitedStates,shallbethesupremelawof
theland,andthejudgesineverystateshallbeboundthereby,anythinginthe
constitutionorlawsofanystatethatgoagainstitwillnotbelegal."
Bythesesections,themassivepoweroftaxationandlegislativeand
judicialpowersthataregiventothefederalgovernment,itmust
necessarilytakeoverthestategovernmentsandcourts;andthiswasthe
purposeofthepeoplethatframedtheConstitution(but,fearfulofalarmingthe
people,theyhaveincludedtheformsofthestategovernmentstoremain,asa
screen.)
IfwhatwassaidearlierisjustacommentiftheUnitedStatesaretobemelted
downintooneempire,itbenefitsyoutoconsider,whethersuchagovernment,
howeverconstructed,wouldbesuitableinsuchahugeterritory;andwhetherit
wouldbepractical,andpreserveyourfreedom?Itistheopinionofthegreatest
writers,thatahugecountrycannotbegovernedondemocraticideas,on
anyotherplan,thanaunionofsmallrepublics,havingallthepowersof
government,butunitedinmanagingtheirforeignandgeneralissues.
Itwouldntbedifficulttoprove,thatanythingotherthantyrannycouldnot
unitesuchabigcountryunderonegovernment;andthatwhateverplan
youmighttry,willturnintotyranny.

Anti-Federalist Cato No. 3 (On Republics and Factions)

The foundation on which this new type of government is to be built, calls for uniting
all of the thirteen states, into one great whole, under the United States, for all the
different and important purposes stated in the Constitution.--But whoever seriously
considers the enormous territory within the boundaries of the United States,
together with the different climates (weather), types of industry, and trade, and the
difference, and number of the people in each state; the differences in interests,
morals, and policies, in every one, will know for sure, that a combined republican
form of government, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure
domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
you and your posterity, Because of this, I must say: this mixed up legislature
therefore, made up of interests opposite and different in their nature, when it is put
into action, will be like a house divided against itself.
It is natural, says Montesquieu, for a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise
it cannot last long: in a large republic, there are rich men, and therefore of less selfcontrol; there are things that are too important to entrust in the hands of a single person,
an ambitious person soon becomes aware that he may be happy, great, and glorious by
abusing his fellow citizens, and that he might raise himself to magnificence, on the ruins
of his country. In large republics, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand opinions;
in a small one the interest of the public is easily seen, better understood, and more
accessible to every citizen; abuses cant do as much damage, and of course are less
protected-- Montesquieu also shows you, that the republic of Sparta lasted so long
because it continued with the same amount of territory after all its wars; and that the
ambition of Athensto command and direct the union, lost them their liberties, and gave
them a monarchy.

The strongest principle of union lies within our own borders. The connection with
your parents are greater than of any other; as we leave home, the next principle of
union is between citizens of the same state, where friendship, habits, and money,
encourage caring, and attachment; lets go even further, and, as citizens of different
states, even though we know we are from the same country, we lose the connection
of friendship, habits, and money, and so, little by little, we lessen in our attachments,
till, eventually, we are barely even aware that we are of the same species. Is it
therefore, reasonable to believe, that inhabitants of Georgia, or New-Hampshire,
will care about you just as people from your own state will, and govern over your
lives, liberties, and property, with the same care and attachment? Logical thinking
will say no.

Anti-Federalist Paper #9 (On Tyranny)

We the Aristocratic (rich) party of the United States, sorry for the many inconveniences
that the Articles of Confederation put the well-born, the better kind of people though,
bringing them down to the level of the rabbleand believing that the main idea behind
every bill of rights, that all men are born equal is completely ridiculousI ask for
permission (for the purpose of drawing a line between the people we think were meant to
govern, and those that were made to be governed without having any say in its
management) to present to our friends in the upper class, so they can look it over, the
following defense of our monarchical (king-like), aristocratic (led by the rich)
democracy.
1st. As a majority of all countries are made up of men who (though totally incapable
of thinking or acting in government issues) are more suited to be led than driven, we
have thought it appropriate to make them think they live in something like a
democracy in the new constitution, by creating the House of Representatives. But to
guard against every possible danger from this lower house, we have made it so that
every bill they try to pass has to go through the double negative of our upper house
(senate) and president. . . .
2d. They will, because they have to be elected every two years, always be under our
eye, and in a short time will think and act like us, without caring what the people
want. . . . We have frequently tried to achieve in our states, the great inequality
which spreads through this new system of government; but realizing that we
couldnt bring the states into it individually, we have decided . . . and have tried very

hard to leave the governments of each state, as they now call themselves, in a
situation that they will eventually be absorbed by our massive government, or
dwindle into nothing, and have power over little else than yoking hogs or deciding the
width of cart wheels . . . Excited that this constitution is designed to control the
influence and power of the LOWER CLASSto create the inequality we have been
after for so long; to secure to our friends privileges and government jobs . . .
Signed by unanimous order of the lords spiritual and temporal.