1787
| November 1787
| Nov 1, 1787: Brutus No. 2 (New York)
| Antifederalist Brutus argued that the proposed plan of government failed to provide adequate protection to individual rights of conscience, the liberty of the press, the freedom of association and the right of the people to the expectation of no unreasonable searches and no cruel and unreasonable punishments. Without mentioning James Wilson by name, he criticizes the contract theory in the State House Speech that declares a bill of Rights to be superfluous & And in direct contrast to the teachings of Federalist 10 and 51, Brutus suggests that the great art "in forming a good constitution appears to be this: so to frame it as that those to whom the power is committed shall be subject to the same feelings, and aim at the same objects as the people do, who transfer to them their authority. There is no possible way to effect this but by an equal, full, and fair representation."
Full Text of Document |
|
| Nov 15, 1787: Brutus No. 3 (New York)
| The Antifederalist Brutus continues his efforts to point out "the principal defects" of the proposed Constitution. He examines "its parts more minutely, and show[s] that the powers are not properly deposited for the security of public liberty." He criticizes the scheme of representation in both the House and Senate. The small number of representatives to be chosen violates the core meaning of representation: "those who are placed instead of the people should possess their sentiments and feelings, and be governed by their interests; or, in other words, should bear the strongest resemblance of those in whose room they are substituted." But under the plan "the well born and highest orders in life, " and not "the farmer, merchant, mechanic" will be represented
Full Text of Document |
|
|
|
|