Anti Federalist Paper No. 67 Analysis

Due to money shortage, farmers from Massachusetts were unable to pay their taxes and debts, thus, leading to a rebellion by Daniel Shay. The farmers then attacked the nation's arsenal. As a result, congress realized they were too weak to stop them and they were shocked into calling a convention where they would later make a new constitution. Naturally, the idea of a new constitution sparked a clash of ideas between the anti-federalists and federalists with a debate on whether or not this new constitution should be ratified. Though, I believe, the people of the United States should not ratify the Constitution because it gives the opportunity and time for the president to seize power and establish tyranny over our beloved country. In addition,

In Anti-Federalist Paper No. 67 by George Clinton, the author states, “And how is the president any different from the king of Great Britain?... these powers, in both president and king, are basically the same.” The author uses a rhetorical question to spark ideas of the president’s and king’s powers. Eventually, the king will rule like a monarchy as they share almost the exact same powers. For this purpose, what was the point of leaving Britain if we're only going to elect a president with the same powers that we escaped from? Clinton then states, “when an office has a lot of power, then the term of that office should be short to balance out that power, and that a term longer time than a year would be dangerous.” This illustrates the president's term and powers as if on a scale. With so much power the president's term should be no longer than a year to balance out that scale. Ultimately, it is important to limit the powers of the executive branch so it does not become a form of monarchy. Not only will the president's long term take away the people's power and establish complete tyranny over our country, but without a bill of rights they will not be protected from abuses of the federal

Anti-Federalist Paper No. 84 by Robert Yates explains, “When a building is to be built which is supposed to stand for ages, the foundation should sturdy. The suggested Constitution is designed, not just for us, but for everyone that comes after us.“ This relates the constitution to a building. Buildings are supposed to stand for ages, but without a sturdy foundation they will quickly be demolished. The constitution is not only designed for us, but also for our posterity so without a firm foundation, such as a bill of rights, it will quickly be abolished. A bill of rights is necessary to hold up the constitution and the people's rights as it will be used in future generations. Yates then goes on to explain, “It's not true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the federal Constitution than in the State constitutions...being the most recent will replace every other agreement that went before it. Since it's a plan of government ratified by the people, it will be superior to all other governments that went before it.“ Being more recent than any other agreement, the federal constitution will replace all other agreements in use before it, making it even more important to establish a bill of rights. It is important to design a bill of rights in our current constitution, seeing as it will replace