Restraining Democracy The Threat of the Constituti Essay Example

would lead to passive subjects rather than active participants in the new government. These concerns were not unfounded paranoia but rooted in reality; only a select few individuals, often wealthy ones, could control the lives of the majority. The anti-Federalists argued that this Constitution would not represent people's interests but instead establish a moderate aristocracy or potentially even a corrupt oppressive monarchy.The Constitution itself provides evidence supporting their claim, as it is evident when examining the distribution of power and appointment processes within each branch of government. The proposed structure and principles of the government are intrinsically undemocratic and representative. Article I of the Constitution establishes a Congress with two chambers, which holds authority over all legislative matters. This grants them the power to create necessary laws without requiring consent from state legislatures or individuals. This demonstrates that the political body possesses absolute and unrestricted power over the people. These aspects emphasize the fundamental difference between anti-Federalists and Federalists in terms of governance powers. The Federalists believed in utilizing any necessary power for effective governance, while the anti-Federalists supported obtaining consent from those who are governed. The language used in the Constitution indicates that laws and power do not need approval or consent from the people. Anti-Federalists recognized their subordination to Congress' powers such as taxation, declaration of wars, formation of armies, and printing currency as granted in Article I, section 8. Furthermore, Article I, section 10 diminishes individual powers held by state governments by requiring authorization from Congress for certain state laws to be enacted.

The Senate, which was accused of representing the wealthy class, held more power compared to the House of Representatives. The

House was seen as the only direct link to power for the people. This difference in power between the two chambers was a point of contention for the anti-Federalists. Contrary to popular belief that the House provides majority power in government, it had a shorter term (2 years) while the Senate had a longer term (6 years), making it less stable when it came to policy creation and implementation. Additionally, unlike the House, the Senate had greater powers such as amending or rejecting legislative proposals from the House, effectively overriding popular will. Furthermore, according to Article II, section 2, they also had "advice and consent" authority over Presidential cabinet positions, Supreme Court nominations, and treaties. These extensive powers granted to the Senate supported concerns raised by anti-Federalists about potential oppressive aristocracy within government. Discussions on merging legislative and executive powers in Congress also sparked fears about susceptibility to corruption as warned by Baron de la Montesquieu who argued that liberty cannot exist when these powers are united. In addition, there were significant concerns regarding how officials for Congress were selected and whether they truly represented their constituents' interests.The lack of popular elections undermines the possibility of a government that truly represents the people, as it gives another political body the power to choose. Representation is a major concern for the anti-Federalists, who fear that uniting states into a large republic would diminish the rights and power of the people and their cherished democracy. There are also doubts about whether representatives from an affluent aristocratic class would genuinely represent the interests of the people. "A Farmer and Planter," an anti-Federalist, strongly expresses doubt about aristocrats willingly

sacrificing their own interests for the benefit of unseen masses. He warns against falling into an aristocratic trap by stating, "Observe well the rich men who are to be your only rulers, lords and masters in future. Does not riches generate power, and power oppression and tyranny?" In addition to this concern, anti-Federalists emphasize proper representation considering the size of the new nation. They argue that expanding the nation makes it difficult for most citizens to exert political influence due to logistical challenges. Governor George Clinton of New York uses a river analogy to illustrate how politicians' power weakens as they become physically distant from the people. Just like circles expanding away from their center, their strength weakens until they ultimately fade away.The author known as "Brutus" argues that the distance between representatives and constituents has led to a decrease in their sense of obligation towards serving the interests of the people, which is not the case if they were geographically closer. According to Brutus, small republics have historically been more successful in safeguarding citizens' freedom compared to large ones. He provides examples of ancient Greek and Roman republics that started off small but eventually grew into oppressive governments. This historical pattern raises concerns about whether America, being a large republic, can maintain its citizens' freedom. Brutus supports this viewpoint by referring to Montesquieu's idea that individual interests often overshadow the common good in large republics. Furthermore, he asserts that extensive republics face inherent challenges due to practical limitations associated with pure democracy where all citizens must gather for discussions and decision-making; implementing such a government over a vast country is not feasible according to

Kammen (309). On the other hand, James Madison's argument in Federalist Paper No.10 contradicts his reasoning for consolidating states into a large republic as he advocates for a democratic form of government with representation and consent. However, this philosophy aligns with the concerns raised by anti-Federalists regarding the undemocratic nature of the Constitution. Madison opposes pure democracy out of fear that an uneducated majority would oppress both himself and minorities.In Federalist No.10, Madison discusses the dangers of political factions arising from an overpowering majority in government. He agrees with the idea that "Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire" but does not support taking away liberty. According to Madison's theory, uniting states under a strong central government would limit destructive political factions because "the majority, having such co-existent passion or interest, must be rendered...unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression." Expanding parties and interests' sphere would make it less likely for a majority to have a common motive to infringe on other citizens' rights. However, this expansion would weaken the power of the majority and diminish political representation (Kammen 145-151). The Constitution hindered people from coming together through shared interests due to communication obstacles and limited concerted action. The Framers justified restricting the people's political power out of fear of the majority, which was supported by practical concerns like Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts intensifying worries about threats to property as farmers rebelled for land and protection against hostile Indian tribes.The uprising was difficult to suppress due to the lack of an organized military force, which raised concerns about national defense and protecting property. The Constitution addressed these concerns by granting

necessary powers. Madison's apprehension towards majority factions was likely reinforced by the rebellion. However, the anti-Federalists discredited Madison's justification for consolidating power based on military necessity because they didn't see a legitimate threat that warranted such a powerful political body. Another concern raised by the anti-Federalists regarding representation was whether politicians from different social classes could genuinely advocate for the people's interests. They believed that political representatives should embody American values and desires. The Framers of the Constitution believed that representation should be led by educated leaders who prioritize the country's best interests rather than solely focusing on the people, resulting in physical and social distance between representatives and constituents. Opponents of the Constitution were skeptical of those involved in its creation, perceiving them as aristocratic individuals driven by self-interest. Prejudices against the wealthy class influenced how ordinary citizens cautiously viewed those in power.The anti-Federalists had concerns about the secrecy and purpose of the Constitutional Convention. They believed that there was a conflict between common citizens and wealthy politicians, who represented the nation. The first anti-Federalist paper highlighted how aristocracy's influence hindered transparency and access to information for people. The anti-Federalists wanted assurance of proper representation and doubted if politicians at that time were suitable for such roles. Critics of the Constitution were more concerned with its lack of a bill of rights than its actual provisions. Opponents feared that individual freedoms would be compromised without these protections in place. This concern was heightened by the extensive powers granted to the central government, making a bill of rights even more crucial. Citizens became particularly worried when a proposal for a national military force arose, fearing

their freedom could be forcibly taken away at any moment. Adding a bill of rights was significant because it acknowledged deficiencies in the original document and recognized Madison's reluctant inclusion of these safeguards.The anti-Federalists were concerned about the potential abuse of power under the Constitution and sought to protect their political power and liberty. They drew parallels between past abuses that led to the Revolution and perceived similarities in the Constitution. Recent experiences under English rule and existing class disparities heavily influenced their perspectives. They saw the drafters of the Constitution as potential aristocrats and unchecked political leaders who would eventually dominate them, viewing it as undemocratic overall. Their concerns centered around fundamental philosophical principles embedded within it. While people desired democracy with proper representation, those in power feared it and considered pure democracy impractical and dangerous for governing a large nation.
The colonists had firsthand experience with democracy in their towns and states. They viewed losing this newfound power as a serious threat to their freedom, fearing a return to being subjects under English rule without understanding political authority. Their concern was that if the Constitution was ratified, ordinary citizens would be at risk of politicians from an elite class who lacked connections to the general population. These individuals learned from historical lessons that concentrating power in a select few inevitably leads to a corrupt and oppressive government.

On April 6, 2001, the Constitution Society published an article entitled "The Constitution Society" which can be found at http://www.constitution.org/afp.htm.

Sources: