Today in Supreme Court History: September 27, 1787

9/27/1787: First Anti-Federalist letter by "Cato" is published.

Comments

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

The anti-Federalists were right about everything. It's a shame that Washington was on the other side. But at least they gave us the Bill of Rights.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

No, they screwed up one thing. The Federalists had said, rightly, that enumerating some fundamental rights would imply that the unenumerated rights were not as important. The anti-Federalists said the 9th and 10th Amendments would fix that. They were wrong. Elevating the unenumerated right to an abortion above the enumerated right to keep and bear arms proves how poorly the fundamental rights are treated.

[Malika la Maize]

“Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power? This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it. As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition. I deny that the general government ought to set them free, because a decided majority of the states have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those whose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The majority of Congress is to the north, and the slaves are to the south.

In this situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquillity gone. I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul that every one of my fellow-beings was emancipated. As we ought with gratitude to admire that decree of Heaven which has numbered us among the free, we ought to lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellowmen in bondage. But is it practicable, by any human means, to liberate them without producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences? We ought to possess them in the manner we inherited them from our ancestors, as their manumission is incompatible with the felicity of our country.”

Patrick Henry opposing the Constitution

[William of Brooklyn]

They were right about the growth of federal power, to be sure. But I suspect to Hamilton and like-minded others, that was a feature, not a bug.

[Krayt]

I warned the EU of creating a new government level, as it's a quick land grab for politicians, who then set about growing their power at the expense of other levels.

I warned a similar thing when Quebec threatened to leave Canada -- beware power coveteous politicians who will have created a new national government. They most certainly do not have your best interests at heart.

Anyway, I suggested the conversion of thinking of yourself as members of the new government, where the old states are anachronisms, is happening far more rapidly in Europe, in spite of most nations there with storied cultures and pride.

Long and short: Peoole should be measuring and documenting this and its rate.

[bernard11]

Truly, Krayt, you are the Cassandra of the VC.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Who do you think you are, Diogenes?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Your letter should have been more strongly worded.