# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Antifederalist (prophets)

## Pauls' Revere

https://fee.org/articles/the-antifed...ily-prophetic/

Their Oppositions to the Constitution
Antifederalists opposed the Constitution on the grounds that its checks on federal power would be undermined by expansive interpretations of promoting the general welfare (which would be claimed for every law) and the all laws necessary and proper clause (which would be used to override limits on delegated federal powers) creating a federal government with unwarranted and undelegated powers that were bound to be abused.
One could quibble with the mechanisms the Antifederalists predicted would lead to constitutional tyranny. For instance, they did not see that the Commerce Clause would come to be called the everything clause in law schools, justifying almost any conceivable federal interventionbecause the necessary distortion of its meaning was so great even Antifederalists couldnt imagine the government could get away with it.

And they could not have foreseen how the 14th Amendment and its interpretation would extend federal domination over the states after the Civil War. But despite that, it is very difficult to argue with their conclusions in light of the current reach of our government, which doesnt just intrude upon, but often overwhelms Americans today.

*Therefore, it merits remembering the Antifederalists prescient arguments and how unfortunate is the virtual absence of modern Americans who share their concerns.*

One of the most insightful of the Antifederalists was Robert Yates, a New York judge who, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, withdrew because the convention was exceeding its instructions. Yates wrote as Brutus in the debates over the Constitution. Given his experience as a judge, his claim that the Supreme Court would become a source of almost unlimited federal overreaching was particularly insightful.
Expanded Judicial Power. 

[more in the article]

----------


## acptulsa

“I do verily believe that if the principle were to prevail of a common law being in force in the United States (which principle possesses the general government at once of all the powers of the state governments, and reduces us to a single consolidated government), it would become the most corrupt government on the earth.”--_Thomas Jefferson_

----------


## PAF

Like the NFL, people, including some on this very RPF forum, need a team to root-toot for, even when the same statist rules apply. Individualism is a wicked, dirty word when trying so hard to feel belonged by a team.

Oh, sure... voting, scape-goating, court system, etc... to work out the bugs/flaws under the same umbrella to keep folks under the illusion that it is the best system they could ever ask for.

.Individual
....Individualism
........Individualist

----------


## r3volution 3.0

What's written on paper doesn't determine what states actually do.

 Since the federal state here doesn't abide by the existing constitution, I don't know why people think it would have abided by any alternative one.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What's written on paper doesn't determine what states actually do.
> 
>  Since the federal state here doesn't abide by the existing constitution, I don't know why people think it would have abided by any alternative one.


Because an alternative one could have provided less excuses and more penalties for violating it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Because an alternative one could have provided less excuses and more penalties for violating it.


I'm sure that the people entrusted with interpreting that constitution would have routinely convicted and punished themselves.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I'm sure that the people entrusted with interpreting that constitution would have routinely convicted and punished themselves.


It would have been easier to make that happen or it would have been easier to replace them with "a little revolution now and then" for blatantly violating with no "interpretation" to excuse them.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It would have been easier to make that happen or it would have been easier to replace them with "a little revolution now and then" for blatantly violating with no "interpretation" to excuse them.


Well, that's a nice and naive thought.

----------

