Essentially the Same Arguments for 225 years – The Role of the
Central Government
In today’s world we like to reflect on the U.S. Constitution as a
sacred document drafted by wise statesmen who came together in Philadelphia
after the Revolutionary War and worked together in peace and harmony to craft
their legacy and formulate out republican form of government, which was an
experiment in representative governing.
The facts, however, are quite different. There were strong,
vitriolic arguments regarding the role of the central government. The
Federalists were comprised primarily of affluent, well educated men including included
George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who
believed a strong central government was essential for economic and national
security reasons.
The Anti Federalists included Sam Adams, John Hancock, George Mason
and Patrick Henry and were concerned that a strong central government would
lead to corruption, that the presidential veto would overrule the will of the
people, and that the power given to Congress to levy taxes would create undue
burdens on the citizenry. George Mason
of Virginia argued the Constitution was "totally subversive of every
principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to
annihilate totally the state governments." It was due to the pressures of
the Anti Federalists, who were concerned about the threat to individual rights,
that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution.
There were also strong differences in
whether the Constitution should be interpreted loosely as argued by Alexander
Hamilton or strictly as espoused by Thomas Jefferson.
From my perspective, the glaring
differences in the approach of the Founding Fathers versus politicians of today
is that today’s politicians ultimately do nothing by argue. They resolve
nothing. And it clear that the concerns
of the Anti Federalists have come to pass. Corruption has become embedded in
government and Congress has acted to impose burdensome taxes on the citizenry
and enacted laws from which it exempts its members.
However, essentially, the arguments
have not substantially changed since the original 13 states voted on whether to
ratify the Constitution 225 years ago. And if the framers argued so
vociferously, how can we claim to know what they collectively meant? This is
something to keep in mind as we approach Election Day 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment