In this week’s episode of Constitutionally Speaking, Jay and Luke continue their discussion of the Anti-Federalists. While many agreed that the powers of the central government had to be expanded, they generally worried that adopting the Constitution was hasty, imprudent, and an overreaction to the problems of the day. Many of them argued that the Constitution was too complex to be properly understood. Patrick Henry, chief among them, warned that a constitution must be “like a beacon,” a clear signal of public purpose, and that the proposed document, with its complicated system of checks and balances, was inscrutable. Many Anti-Federalists also warned that the Constitution was the product of an aristocratic plot to undermine civic virtue, defraud the people of their rights, and turn the republic into a commercial and military empire.

Recommended Readings:

Subscribe to Constitutionally Speaking by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

There is 1 comment.

  1. Coolidge

    The anti-Federalist complaint about the Constitution being too complicated reminds me of something I read a long time ago. It’s that most modern foreign constitutions are much longer than ours. They cover a lot of subjects that would be regular laws in our system.

    • #1
    • February 7, 2018 at 1:09 am
    • Like