Nov 8, 2017 in Opinion

The NY Ratification Debates as Anti-Federalist

It is good for all of us to acknowledge that the proposed constitution has some flaws. It is therefore our duty as people who are opposing the ratification of this constitution to make it clear that our agenda is not to bring down this constitution, but to protect many United States citizens from the implications that can result from ratification of a constitution that is not thoroughly checked. I want to assure my fellow brothers who are proposing for the ratification of the proposed constitution that most of its content is not for the goodness of our beloved country. I am not opposing this constitution for any individual goals or on behalf of any political party.

It is our responsibilities as the peoples chosen leaders to bring our political minds together free from any individualism to give the United States citizen the best constitution.  It is thus crucial that we establish a common ground by amending any differences that we hold towards the proposed constitution. It is my strong believe that the proposed constitution is not intending to foster and secure the union of all states in the Americas. If the proposed constitution is not amended, I think it is giving the national government legitimate roles and it may fail to improve infrastructure of the union of the different States.

This constitution is giving too much authority to the national or the federal government at the cost of the state government. The constitution is giving the national government the power to collect taxes from the people. A detailed interpretation of the supremacy clause in the proposed constitution means that the federal or national government laws are superior to any law that a state government can make. This will finally lead to the disappearance of the state governments.

The federal government according to the proposed draft is not allowing for a significant representation by the different states. Furthermore, the federal government is planning to undermine the views of the state governments. It is my understanding that the constitution that my fellow delegates lobbying for its ratification is intending to create a potential tyrannical monarchy by the separation of the federal government into three independent bodies. These three branches national government established by this constitution are being given excessive powers to control the state governments.

On matters pertaining to bill of rights, let me say that the proposed constitution is depriving the United States citizens off their fundamental human rights. Failure to include the bill of rights in this proposed constitution can be looked at as a way of promoting violation of human rights. I thus assume that the aim of this constitution is not to protect innocent Americans. Failure to include the bill of rights in the draft constitution will promote abuse of power by government officials and other authorities. I therefore don’t think such a constitution is what majority of citizens want.

Another disturbing issue about this constitution is that it is placing the national government at a position that common citizens cannot access. I think a free government requires that people who have chosen it to take an active role. This is discouraging because the checks and balances established by the three bodies of the national government may fail. This will make people chosen government to use the military against its people. This will promote a tyranny.

Finally, let me tell my fellow delegates who are proposing the ratification of this constitution the way it is that the constitution is failing to outline or put clear boundaries of the national government. This makes the national government prone to the abuse of power. It is therefore my sincere request to the delegates who are for this constitution that we should not hurry in ratifying a document whose interests is not the wellbeing of the people of America.

Related essays