I. Federalists: (Democrats)
Believed in the need for a strong central government.
Believed that the central government would protect the citizens in a way that the states couldn’t or wouldn’t.
Thought that this was the only way to create a country rather than just 13 states.
II. Anti-Federalists: (Republicans)
Thought most power must remain with the States.
Feared tyranny like the British Monarchy would result from a strong central government.
Said if they were going to do this- citizens must have guaranteed protections against possibility of tyranny
This is crucial because it becomes the Bill of Rights.
III. Patrick Henry was an Anti-Federalist who wasn’t going to sign without a Bill of Rights. Henry laid out his concerns for the changes in Government at the Virginia Ratifying Convention: 1) the Preamble is ordained by “We the People,” and not “We the States,” 2) the Constitution departs too far from the Articles of Confederation, 3) representation in the House is inadequate, 4) the rights of the people are not properly protected by a bill of rights from “the commands of tyrants” and “disciplined armies,” 5) the amendment process in Article V is flawed since it requires more than a majority to amend, 6) Article I, Section 8 supports a standing army and unlimited taxation, 7) the delegates in Philadelphia exceeded their authority, 8) the people of Virginia are unable to change their form of government, 9) there is “the probability of the President’s enslaving America,” and 10) there is “no true responsibility” in the Constitution, specially since Congress will probably fix the elections.
Alexander Hamilton, however, stated explicitly that a Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous — which was a reflection of his antidemocratic attitude.
Overall, the framers of the constitution favored a strong national government. Most of the anti-federalists boycotted the convention, such as Henry, or left in protest, like the New York delegates, besides Hamilton.
II. The founders of the constitution wanted to amendment process to be slow moving on purpose. The wanted to create a government that would have durability, even though they also recognized the need for flexibility. Which is why they created the process above.
III. The 3 major roles the US Supreme Court has played in the amendment process are, 1. Nationalizer of the Bill of Rights, 1925 to present, selective incorporation to the states, 2. Instigator of constitutional amendments, and 3. Interpreter of article V.
IV. There is tension between Congress and the Court due to the interpretation of article V, and who gets the say in what amendments should be passed or not. Sometimes the SC makes decisions that Congress doesn’t like and they can overturn it causing obvious tensions.
V. The court has been hesitant to involve itself in the process because of the tensions it has caused. The Doctrine of Justiciability is one of several criteria that the United States Supreme Court use to make a judgment granting writ of certiorari, which is a writ seeking judicial review.
One example is Coleman v. Miller (1939), which involved the actions of the Kansas legislature over the child labor amendment. In 1924 Congress proposed the amendment, which stated, “The Congress shall have power to limit, refuel, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.” At first the Kansas legislatures rejected the amendment in 1925, however, in 1937 the senate reconsidered it and the legislative body split 20-20, and it went to the court. The court then decided that it was not an appropriate place to settle them, and that the authority of the amendment process ultimately was Congress and not them.
Another more recent article V case is that of NOW v. Idaho (1982). The issue was a 1978 act of Congress that extended the original deadline for state ratification of