Federalists and Anti-Federalists: constitutional debates and political divisions

¶ … Antifederalist Papers were written in opposition to the ratification of the federal constitution by a loosely-associated group of men who disagreed with the Federalists and wanted to simply rework the original Articles of Confederation that had been used to govern the nation from the time of the revolution to the late 1780s. Unlike the Federalist Papers, they were not coordinated and tightly controlled in order to build a case for their favored system of government. As such, they lost the battle for public opinion, and the constitution was enacted. However, many of the points raised by the Antifederalists have come to haunt the political debate in America throughout its history. For example, in #46, "An Old Whig" questions the necessary and proper clause and asks "without force what can restrain the Congress from making such laws as they please?" Two hundred-plus years into the founding, we know that the Judiciary can overturn a law, and the executive can simply not enforce it. And yet, the growth of federal government which lies at the heart of the question has been immense and ever-increasing. Importantly, the federal government has come to subsume the state governments by use of the necessary and proper clause, just as "Brutus" predicted it would, in #17. In #84, "Brutus" argues for a bill of rights by claiming that "Those who have governed, have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the public liberty" While the Antifederalists won the point regarding the Bill of Rights and saw it established, the concern raised here about corruption has been borne out numerous times in American history. The Antifederalists wanted to limit government severely in order to limit the effects of such corruption.