The Anti-Federalist Papers

As a non-American it always surprises me how much American&#x27;s look for the past for guidance in the democracy and government. America was one of the first modern democracies, and people who wrote the constitution were the bleeding edge. All that was a long time ago and things have evolved.<p>Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Jan. 30, 2012:<p>&gt;You should certainly be aided by all the constitution writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa — that was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recently than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. So, yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

I’m surprised by how many people in this thread (and I assume a good portion are American) are unfamiliar with the existence of these. I knew our social studies education sucked in the US but I didn’t know it was that bad. The arguments of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers (and therefore their existence) is supposed to be taught in a middle school level history class in a unit on the formation of the republic after the revolution. At least it was in mine and I can’t understand why it wouldn’t be in others since it’s at the core of the debate around the passage of the constitution and then shortly thereafter passage of the Bill of Rights. The two sets of papers also reflect on issues people had with The Articles of Confederation.

I had not read these before, but they are fascinating. For instance, this powerful argument[0] against the Electoral College is still made, nearly verbatim, today.<p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;resources.utulsa.edu&#x2F;law&#x2F;classes&#x2F;rice&#x2F;Constitutional&#x2F;AntiFederalist&#x2F;72.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;resources.utulsa.edu&#x2F;law&#x2F;classes&#x2F;rice&#x2F;Constitutional&#x2F;...</a>

also worth a read is &quot;An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States&quot; by Charles Beard which examines how the personal financial interests of the founding fathers shaped the constitution

I recently tried reading some of the Federalist Papers, but found the writing style too opaque for a casual read (perhaps some of the other authors&#x27; are more accessible, but then, Hamilton did write most of them). Can anyone recommend some kind of annotated version that&#x27;s more accessible to a modern reader?<p>These Anti-Federalist Papers seem a bit more accessible, but part of my interest is in understanding the motivation of the writing of the constitution, and it seems there is no better source for that than the Federalist Papers.

This is fascinating -- I&#x27;ve studied a great deal of political philosophy and never heard of them.<p>More info:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Anti-Federalist_Papers" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Anti-Federalist_Papers</a><p>Which concludes:<p>&gt; <i>The Anti-Federalists proved unable to stop the ratification of the US Constitution, which took effect in 1789. Since then, the essays they wrote have largely fallen into obscurity. Unlike, for example, The Federalist No. 10 written by James Madison, none of their works are mainstays in college curricula or court rulings. The influence of their writing, however, can be seen to this day – particularly in the nature and shape of the United States Bill of Rights.</i>

I keep both the federalist papers, and the antifederalist papers on my bookshelf. I bought them when Trump was elected because I wanted to see whether the founders thought that there was something in the system that would protect us if a morally bankrupt person took hold the executive branch. Unfortunately, many of the federalists thought we could obviously prevent that from happening, while many of the antifederalists thought that tyrants would become the norm immediately.<p>They&#x27;re a fun to flip through, as some of the predictions almost read like alternate history fictions, because they&#x27;re just so wild.<p>One essay I found particularly amusing (wish I could remember which paper said it), argued that the complexity of the legislative branch was clearly intended to to create endless demand for lawyers, thus ensuring that the lawyer career path would be prestigious and well-paid forever.

I would advise looking up the Federalist Papers via the the Library of Congress.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;guides.loc.gov&#x2F;federalist-papers&#x2F;full-text" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;guides.loc.gov&#x2F;federalist-papers&#x2F;full-text</a>

Interest in the Anti-Federalist papers is a recent phenomenon. In the 19th century one of their rare cites was in the Dred Scott decision, their <i>second</i> of the century. There were only five cites and no quotes for the entire 19th century. They were rarely cited until the 1960s. &quot;From 1900 to 1959, the Court cited the Anti-Federalist Papers approximately once per decade.&quot; [1]<p>The Anti-Federalist papers are only interesting if you want to re-litigate federalism vs &#x27;states rights&#x27;.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.ua.edu&#x2F;pubs&#x2F;lrarticles&#x2F;Volume%2063&#x2F;Issue%205&#x2F;4%20Zelinsky%201067%20-%201113.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.ua.edu&#x2F;pubs&#x2F;lrarticles&#x2F;Volume%2063&#x2F;Issue%205...</a>

Other than the Bill of Rights, which addressed some of the objections raised I wonder if there was an anti-Anti-Federalist Papers which in turn addressed those concerned more in depth.