Thanks To The Anti-Federalists
The Bill of Rights celebrated its 223rd anniversary yesterday. Anyone who believes this is a positive addition to America's history should thank the Anti-Federalists, since they were responsible for the creation of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. There aren't a whole lot of folks today who call themselves "Anti-Federalists," so you'll have to salute their memory instead.
George Washington's greatest failure as the first leader of our country (by his own admission) was his futile effort to prevent partisanship from ever developing in our national government. Washington was a starry-eyed idealist (one might almost say "Utopian") in his vision for how the new country should be governed. He even devoted much of his farewell address to denouncing what was then known as "factionalism," which now reads as an admission of defeat for his grand ideal of sober-minded men working for the betterment of their country instead of getting caught up in the passions of politics. But without such factionalism, the Bill of Rights wouldn't ever have even existed.
Washington was the leader of the group who became known as the Federalists. It was they who, unsurprisingly, penned the Federalist Papers -- a series of essays intended to whip up public support for the proposed Constitution. Federalists such as Washington and Alexander Hamilton believed in as strong a federal government as possible (the original "big government party," in a way), which was reasonable, since everyone could see the abject failure of the "small government" Articles of Confederation. America was at risk of essentially breaking into thirteen separate nation-states, and the Constitution was the proposed remedy -- with its much stronger and more robust federal government. Washington and Hamilton fervently believed that they knew what was best for the country, and they were somewhat taken aback that there were others who argued against their grand idea. Washington's non-factional ideal, in fact, was akin to the Federalists being in control forever, with no organized opposition.
Not everyone went along with this plan, however. The opponents of the Constitution became known as the Anti-Federalists, and argued that the proposed federal government would be too strong and there would be too many chances for it to develop into the same tyranny they had been fighting. They called for limits to the federal government's power.
[An interesting side note: It always astonishes me that the people today who argue for limited federal power call themselves "Federalists" (as in the "Federalist Society"), when they are actually arguing the Anti-Federalist position. It is as if people calling for legalizing drugs called themselves "Prohibitionists" -- it makes no sense whatsoever.]
But even the Anti-Federalists could see that the Articles of Confederation were falling apart. So, in essence, they cut a deal. They allowed for the ratification of the Constitution in the states where they held the most power, but only if the Federalists would likewise allow the Bill of Rights to be enacted alongside it. The Constitution itself contains many political compromises (the makeup of the House and the Senate, for instance), but the big factional compromise was to ratify both the Constitution, to set up a new federal government, and the Bill of Rights, to guarantee individual rights that such a government could never take away.
The Federalists went along with this plan, mostly because they saw the Bill of Rights as superfluous -- it was unnecessary, they argued, because it was inconceivable that the federal government would ever try to usurp such rights. They were starry-eyed idealists in a number of different ways, in other words.
But the Anti-Federalists held firm, and demanded the Bill of Rights as the price for their support for the new Constitution. On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the tenth state to ratify the Bill of Rights, and they became the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
[Interesting footnote: There were twelve amendments initially sent to the states for ratification. What became the First Amendment through the Tenth Amendment started out as proposed amendments three through twelve. The second of these proposed amendments, after languishing for a few centuries, eventually did become the Twenty-Seventh Amendment -- but that's a funny story you'll have to look up on your own.]
Washington's dream of factional-free government never really became a reality (unless you count the brief, pre-Andrew Jackson "Era of Good Feelings"). His Federalists held power for his two terms, and the single term of his successor John Adams. They were defeated by the Thomas Jefferson's Anti-Federalists in the election of 1800, which was called the "Revolution of 1800" because it was such a monumental shift in political power in early America -- the first time control of the U.S. government shifted in a big way. These initial two parties didn't endure, however. By the end of Jackson's term in the 1830s, two new parties had sprung up -- the Democrats and the Whigs. The Civil War saw the collapse of the Whigs and the rise of the Republican Party. Factionalism continues to rage to this day.
But it is worth remembering, especially as we are now in one of those power-shifting transitions, the first compromise ever reached between two political factions. One wanted a powerful federal government, to correct the problems the weak states'-rights-centric Articles of Confederation government had struggled with. The other faction feared the power a central government might grab for itself, and demanded an iron-clad guarantee of private rights be written into our founding document.
So happy 223rd anniversary to the Bill of Rights! The earliest hard-fought compromise between two differing governing philosophies has withstood the test of time. Today, both parties champion at least parts of the Bill of Rights (everyone has their own favorite, of course). Major Supreme Court cases hinge on what the meaning of a single Bill of Rights comma means, and interpretation of this document continues to evolve. To see its importance, just imagine for a moment what the legal landscape would be like today if the Bill of Rights had never been ratified.
Which is why I raise my glass and offer up a toast to the Bill of Rights, and to the stout-hearted Anti-Federalists who championed it and got it ratified. America, in many ways, is a much better place because of their actions. We can continue to disagree about our own differing interpretations of this clause or that, but we can all agree on one thing, at least. The only profession mentioned in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the press. Freedom of the press is why you are able to read these words today -- without any governmental interference whatsoever. And that, at the least, we can all celebrate.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
[An interesting side note: It always astonishes me that the people today who argue for limited federal power call themselves "Federalists" (as in the "Federalist Society"), when they are actually arguing the Anti-Federalist position. It is as if people calling for legalizing drugs called themselves "Prohibitionists" -- it makes no sense whatsoever.]
Which is why someone needs to write a book about all of this ... no one else could do it better, Chris.
I suspect that some of the founders, at least, of the Federalist Society knew that they were naming their "small government" group after the "big government" party of its time, and did so on the premise that even the "big government" side was more "small government" than today's "small government" party.
(Note that '"big government"' and '"small government"' include quotation marks, to indicate the fact that "small government" is bigger than "big government". "Small government" means that they want to confine government to what they consider its legitimate functions: the military, and the transfer of unlimited amounts of money from taxpayers to bondholders. The latter is to be accomplished by running ever-increasing deficits until the government is so burdened by debt that it can't do anything else. So in the short run they're happy to spend on anything that will increase the deficit, really for political reasons but theoretically, ironically, on the premise that after the Revolution, the state will wither away.)
Ya gotta wonder how Washington, Jefferson and Adams would view the Obama Administration.
My guess is, they wouldn't be happy...
Excellent history lesson, CW...
As usual...
Michale
233
Federalists such as Washington and Alexander Hamilton believed in as strong a federal government as possible (the original "big government party," in a way)
Strong does not necessarily BIG equal...
Michale
236
I've always considered the Bill of Rights to be the "soul" of the US Constitution and the most significant contribution of the United States to the Western notion of Enlightenment. An American Original.
Frequently vague and notably subject to divergent interpretation. (II)
sorry, cat just sent this off prematurely ( really, she just triggered the submit comment by treading on the mouse). Bad Cat!!!
moving on:
often honored mostly in the breech, the following are perpetually in the news cycle:
establishment of religion (I). Protestant is basically more equal than the others.
unreasonable searches and seizures (IV)
speedy trial (Ha!) assistance of counsel for his defense (really?) (VI)
excessive bail, excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishments (VIII)
Sadly missing from the Bill of Rights is an explicit right to vote.
Done. Cat has been cautioned and allowed back in the office.
Sadly missing from the Bill of Rights is an explicit right to vote.
No one is denying anyone the explicit right to vote..
Americans are simply enforcing the RESPONSIBILITY that goes along with the right...
Michale
238
Americans are simply enforcing the RESPONSIBILITY that goes along with the right...
With practically every "right" we enjoy there is a corresponding responsibility...
When you exercise your right to vote, you have the responsibility of proving you HAVE that right to vote...
Michale
239
The original Constitution barred religious tests to hold office or positions of public trust, but otherwise left states free to set voter eligibility. States could and did use race, sex and economic condition to determine the right to vote. .
The 15th amendment barred using race or previous servitude to deny the right to vote.
The 19th barred denial based on sex.
The 24th banned poll taxes to deny the right to vote.
States governments keep finding new ways to deny the vote in specific jurisdictions. Like not providing sufficient money for sufficient voting apparatus, or by restricting polling hours. Lines around the block are frequent in my state - inevitably in economically stressed cities.
So, lets cut the opportunity for mischief. Right now, states could probably use bad breath, or the inability to do 5 pushups as a voting test. Probably won't survive court challenge, but why should citizens have to challenge blatant political disenfranchisement, and miss casting a few votes while it all gets decided. Make the right to vote affirmative - every citizen has an equal right to vote. No discriminatory allocation of resources needed to vote. Want voter ID? Fine, just make it free and as universal as the social security card. A nice little gift on your 18th birthday.
"Strong does not necessarily BIG equal..."
True, but it does equate with Powerful. A government small enough to drown in bath tub is not very powerful. George Washington, a big guy, believed in flexing Federal Power. Think Whiskey Rebellion and George Washington's armed response. Alexander Hamilton, a short guy, believed in financing federal power, and proposed the whiskey tax that resulted in rebellion.
TS,
So, lets cut the opportunity for mischief.
Agreed...
What causes more problems..
A person who has a right to vote, but can't...
Or a person who is an illegal voter, but votes...
I would say that they both are equal...
So, let's treat BOTH problems equally..
As opposed to letting partisan ideology be the determining factor..
Wouldn't you agree??
Michale
240
Make the right to vote affirmative - every citizen has an equal right to vote.
Agreed..
Every *CITIZEN* has an equal right to vote..
But each potential voter has to PROVE they are a citizen..
I honestly don't see how ANYONE could have a problem with this..
Unless they are inclined to cheat...
You see my point??
Michale
241
True, but it does equate with Powerful. A government small enough to drown in bath tub is not very powerful. George Washington, a big guy, believed in flexing Federal Power. Think Whiskey Rebellion and George Washington's armed response. Alexander Hamilton, a short guy, believed in financing federal power, and proposed the whiskey tax that resulted in rebellion.
Soo.......
Are you advocating the position that might makes right??? :D
Michale
242
So, apparently our Bill Of Rights is not terrorist proof..
A pissant country like North Korea can dictate what Americans can or cannot see on the big screen....
Pathetic..... Sadly pathetic....
Michale
244
Pathetic..... Sadly pathetic....
Don't get me wrong.. I completely understand the position SONY is in..
If they were to go ahead with the premiere, ignore the threats and a movie-goer so much as skinned their knee or got a splinter, Sony would be in a world of hurts..
I just think it's sad that what Americans can and cannot watch is at the mercy of the testicular-challenged and some third world pisspot...
My wife had a really good idea. She heard it somewhere.
Sony should release THE INTERVIEW on the Internet. Make it available far and wide at no cost.... Let activists in South Korea burn DVDs of the movie and paper the North Korean countryside with copies of THE INTERVIEW...
Not only will that be a big BIG FRAK YOU!! to little man Kim un, it will also be a great deterrent to copy-cats....
A helluva good idea...
Michale
251
http://nypost.com/2014/12/18/kim-jong-un-death-scene-from-the-interview-leaks-online/
Now THAT was kewl!!
Michale
252
I read that for a moment as "the Kim Jong undeath scene". Zombie communist dictator!
I read that for a moment as "the Kim Jong undeath scene". Zombie communist dictator!
hehehehehehe!!! :D
Michale
265
I would say that they both are equal...
So, let's treat BOTH problems equally..
I would say both problems are not equal, so let's treat both proportionately, based on hard evidence. Let's not exacerbate a very large problem (access) by focusing on what all objective studies show is a much smaller problem (fraud). Especially proposed when fixes are deliberately designed to disenfranchise your political opponents.
Let's not exacerbate a very large problem (access) by focusing on what all objective studies show is a much smaller problem (fraud).
A> Access is not a large problem at all. Anyone can contact their Party's programs and get a ride to anywhere they need to go...
I am also constrained to point out that many on the Left have no problem with restricting access to Right wing voters...
As for fraud being a much smaller problem, I can point to "hard evidence" that says this is simply not the case..
Tens of thousands of illegal voters in North Carolina for example.. Democrat operatives instructing people how to vote multiple times for another example..
Unless those on the Left (and on the Right) are fair and address ALL DIFFERENT TYPES of voter disenfranchise, it's nothing but partisan ideology in play...
Especially proposed when fixes are deliberately designed to disenfranchise your political opponents.
You mean like having armed New Black Panther soldiers outside of mostly white voting booths??
You mean like that??
Of course you don't mean like that..
Which illustrates EXACTLY the problem..
Voter disenfranchisement is perfectly fine as long as it's not the chosen Party being disenfranchised...
Michale
271
Voter disenfranchisement is perfectly fine as long as it's not the chosen Party being disenfranchised...
I mean, ignore all the hype and just look at the facts..
According to the Hysterical Left, a cop car parked a mile away in a predominantly black voting area is "disenfranchisement"....
But armed and uniformed New Black Panther scum at the doorway of a predominantly white voting area is not...
Michale
277
According to the Hysterical Left, a cop car parked a mile away in a predominantly black voting area is "disenfranchisement"....
Please keep in mind that, in my mind, there is a very clear distinction between the "Hysterical Left" and the rest...
The Hysterical Left consists of your truthers and your BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL!! etc etc etc...
No one here, as far as I am concerned is part of the "Hysterical Left"...
Simply being a part of Weigantia precludes such an outlook..
Just wanted to make sure I was clear...
Michale
279