Why the Constitution should NOT be Ratified, from an Anti-Federalist

The Constitutional Convention of 1787, as most people in America may not know of since it was done in secret, has scrapped the Articles of Confederation. In place of this, they drafted a constitution, currently being sent out to be ratified by the states. This should be a concern for all American citizens as the new constitution poses a major problem for the United States. The new constitution grants excessive power to the federal government’s hands. To prevent any abuse of power from plaguing the United States of America once again, the constitution should not be ratified.

The ratification of the constitution would put too much power in the national government’s hands. This new power granted to the national government raises many issues. To begin with, the central government could not possibly govern or create laws to represent the entirety of the United States for its size. The United States is becoming increasingly large with the addition of new colonies and the idea that such a small group of people holding so much power could represent the entirety of that population is flawed. Writings from great thinkers share this same philosophy. In Montesquieu’s ‘Spirit of Laws’, chap. xvi. vol I [book VIII], he states, “It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected.” As referenced by Montesquieu, the group of people at the head of the central government would mostly consist of wealthy landowners who couldn’t possibly understand or represent the experiences of the majority of citizens in America who are working-class. This could easily be abused leading to decisions only being made in the favor of wealthy landowners. Fair and effective representation would be unachievable.

Ratifying the constitution would also mean a massive imbalance between the national government and state government. The national government would hold far more power than it had before, leaving state governments in a vulnerable position and at risk of being completely eliminated. Power would not be divided among states to individually govern and represent their citizens but instead all concentrated into one place. This would lead to a loss of individual and states rights. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 states, “…make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution.” The powers given by this clause can be used to pass almost any law and can be exercised to abolish all state legislature. Granting that much power to the national government could place the nation in a similar spot we were in with Britain, with a supreme government that would greedily dictate all of our choices.

On the contrary, a federalist reading this may take a look and argue that the idea that the federal government would strip power from the states is absurd. Considering that the very senators and members of the House of Representatives make up the federal government, it would be redundant for them to strip power from their states during their term as they would have to return to their states. However, it is naive to assume that the federal government would not act in self-interest. It is human nature for those that have power to try to obtain more. There is nothing stopping senators and representatives under the new constitution from exploiting Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 to enact new laws to prolong their terms and strip power from the states in exchange for more of their own.

In conclusion, the constitution should not be ratified due to the amount of power it grants to the national government that can be abused. The national government would be able to instate laws that only benefitted them and abolish state governments completely with the new clauses such as Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 in the new draft of the constitution. To prevent any tyranny similar to that of Britain from occurring ever again, the constitution should not be ratified.