For the Anti-Federalists, the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause, which gives the federal government power to make all laws "necessary and proper" to executing government's business, contained the seeds of absolute control. "Under such a clause as this," asked an Anti-Federalist writing as "An Old Whig," "can any thing be said to be reserved and kept back from Congress?" "The Federal Farmer" (thought to be Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith) wrote that "it is impossible to have a just conception of [Congress's] powers, or of the extent and number of laws which may be deemed necessary and proper."
When combined with other clauses, like the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause has been used precisely as they feared. Applying the Necessary and Proper Clause to the Commerce Clause has allowed Congress to reach almost every non-commercial activity, turning the Commerce Clause into a general powers clause.
It is certainly different than what the Framers envisioned, and the Federalists intended, which was a government of limited and enumerated powers that left most issues to local governance and to the states.
For the Anti-Federalist "Cato", a large and powerful government was particularly prone to being infiltrated by "ambitious people" of "large fortunes" who will realize that they can become "happy, great, and glorious by oppressing [their] fellow citizens." Such a person would "raise himself to grandeur, on the ruins of his country" because in a large republic "the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views." (Familiar?)
Furthermore, given "the vast extent" of the United States' size (even back then), as well as "the complication of interests", "the science of government will become intricate and perplexed, and too mysterious" for the average person to "understand and observe."
The Federal Farmer thought representatives in the federal government would be "too far removed from the people, in general, to sympathize with them, and too few to communicate with them." It is a "consideration well worth pursuing," he asked, "how far this house of representatives will be liable to be formed into private juntos," creating groups of "unprincipled men, often distinguished for their wealth or abilities," who will "combine together and make their object their private interests and aggrandizement."
Centinel (probably Samuel Bryan) said that "the organization of this government"is devoid of all responsibility or accountability to the great body of the people, and that so far from being a regular balanced government, it would be in practice a permanent ARISTOCRACY."
A majority of members of Congress now are millionaires. Eighty-one percent of people think the government can be trusted to do what's right, and 75 percent see widespread government corruption. We seem to have peak animosity and disappointment toward those in Washington, with anger coming from both the left and the right. Increasing numbers of Americans believe DC does not represent them.
For many, it might as well be a later-stage Rome, sliding into decadent splendor and self-absorption. Or, in the words of Cato, the "federal city" would be "the asylum of the base, idle, avaricious and ambitious," that would "possess a language and manners different from yours."
A national government with unrestrained power would be very bad, thought Yates, because the people were too diverse to be effectively centrally governed. A remote, national government given such great powers would cause a "constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other."
Quoting the Constitution, Cato sounded the same concerns:
[W]hoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and politics, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity.
Anti-Federalist feared that the Constitution's checks and balances would be undermined by an expansive court, enabling a federal government with unwarranted and undelegated powers that were bound to be abused.
The Supreme Court would become a main source of abuse because they were beyond the control of "both the people and the legislature." They predicted that the Supreme Court would adopt "very loose" principles of interpretation because there had never in history been a court with such "immense powers," which was perilous for a nation founded on "consent of the governed". It could easily empower "creative" rulings with "the force of law," due to lack of ability to "control their adjudications" and "correct their errors." This failing would compound over time in a "silent and imperceptible manner," through precedents building on one another.
They argued that overly broad judicial readings would give power to justices to shape the federal government and its limits at will, because the Court's interpretations would remake it. And that would make the courts the most dangerous branch, contradicting Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 78 assertion to the contrary. Anyone who knows the history of reinterpretation of the separation of powers, the commerce and takings clauses, and much of the Bill of Rights, among other examples, knows that they were right.
Anti-federalist Brutus (generally assumed to be New York delegate Robert Yates) summarized the issue thus:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
