GPOSC 225 1st Edition Lecture 6Outline of Last Lecture II. Constitutional Convention – Cont’dIII. VA Plana. Main Thrustb. New PowersIV. New Jersey Plana. Main Thrustb. New PowersV. Ratification Debatesa. Anti-Federalistsb. FederalistsOutline of Current Lecture VI. BrutusVII. Problems (The Anti-Feds found with the Constitution)VIII. Demands (Anti-Fed)IX. Melancton SmithX. Small VS. Large Republics (Brutus)XI. VideoCurrent LectureBrutusIn his Ant-Federalist paper he basically asks:- Should we have confederated government (confederated = national and state)- And does this constitution do this or should we be concerned that it creates a consolidated government.1. He points to the NECESSARY AND PROPER clause. “Congress will make all laws necessary and proper to execute these powers. Antifederalists hate this clause. Thomas Jefferson says enumerated powers should shoelace congress and not give vague unlimited powers. These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.Alexander Hamilton replies saying the Necessary and Proper clause makes it clear that thereare implied powers Congress might have to exercise that we can’t explicitly state. NOTE: Thomas Jefferson is not an Anti-Federalist unlike the video we watched says. He supported the constitution; he just wanted to amend some things (seeming anti-federalist).2. Supremacy Clause – “any law/treaty made by congress is supreme supersedes state constitutions”. At this time antifederalists worried that this would be used to overrule already written state constitutions.a. [e.g.] the drinking age in the States. If a state wanted to change the law, they could. But they would be penalized by receiving less federal funding and would therefore have to raise taxes. They worry that the constitution means that the central government will have all the power as well as indefinite expansion of power and the states will not be able to raise their own taxes. Problems:What problems did the Anti-Feds have with the constitution? 1. France and Britain are all unitary, one size fits all democracies. They argue that political liberty cannot be preserved in large republics. They look at history, all of the thriving republics were small with aclose relationship between citizens and representatives. He quotes Montesquieu. (e.g. Ancient Greece).NOTE: “There is nothing un-American about arguing over class warfare”2. In order to have a functional government you want sameness, “homogeneity”, NOT diversity so that things get done. People must agree in a republic. 3. There were too few representatives. Represent “your own” interest? They believed it was closer to a parliamentary rule because you only needed 17 people effectively in the House and 7 people in the Senate to pass legislature. NOTE: We can’t change the way the senate is dispersed BUT the house has been changed, the number of seats of representatives has been increased. DemandsThe Anti-Federalists demanded:- Term limits- A bill of rights- Annual elections in the House of Representatives- Limits on taxing powers- More checks and reduced powers of the National governmentNOTE: In the end they only got the Bill of RightsMELANCTON SMITH He argues that the interests of people can only be protected by state governments. Representatives are not chosen by small populations. There can be abuse of power if it is given to a few men. The wealthy have a distinct advantage on winning campaigns because of their time for leisure and the resources they have. So you will end up choosing a representatives based on reputation, not by personally knowing them. Voters won’t know their elected officials which creates distrust.Brutus on Small Republicsvs LargeIn a small republic, the law is not imposed upon you by a large external force (that you do not trust). In a large republic, there is local resistance to laws and distrust to far away authorities. In a small republic, laws are self enforcingHowever, remember that both sides of this argument wanted to maintain the union to keep Europe away from the game- away from making the states into individual European pawns. Video (in-class on the Bill of Rights)The story of the bill of Rights:What rights should people have? Bill of rights came out of fierce governmental debate between the antifederalists and the federalists. Most Americans were with the antifederalists – rights wasa huge part of the fight for independence. “We are not going to build another government that will take advantage of us, and deny us our rights”. George Mason starts a fight --? We need a billof rights. Well the Federalists thought enumerating rights was bad can you really list ALL human rights? IF government isn’t explicitly given a power in the constitution, it’s assumed that they just don’t have it. But the antifederalists say that we need restrictions of national government. Jefferson wrote to Madison saying we NEED the bill of rights. Bill of Rights was Madison’s campaign promise to congress after promising Massachusetts he would include oneif they would ratify the constitution. Antifederalists wanted to weaken the national government but NO Madison wants to protect the national government.So Madison only includes individual liberties in the Bill of