Tonight, September 19, FPR’s own Bill Kauffman will gird up to re-make the case of the Anti-federalists at the Tocqueville Forum‘s annual Constitution Day event. He will be debating Professor Colleen Sheehan of Villanova University, defender of the “consolidators.” It should be a terrific, entertaining and educational evening in which we recall just how contemporary those ancient debates remain. I will serve as moderator.
Readers in the DC area are cordially invited to attend (others will have to wait for the recording). Join us at 7 p.m. in the Copley Formal Lounge on the campus of Georgetown University. More information here.
Given them hell, Bill. Albeit, do not concede that the “consolidators” won the debate during ratification. Based on original intentions jurisprudence, a strong case can made that the 1789 Constitution, when properly interpreted, was actually compatible with many of the Anti-Federalists’ concerns. This is what Federalists had to promise to moderate Anti-Federalists in many key state conventions (e.g., VA, NY, etc.) in order to secure majorities for ratification. Moreover, when you survey a majority of the original thirteen states, you see indications in the ratification statements and other relevant evidence (at or just after ratification) that the states understand themselves to still retain overwhelming power under the terms of the compact. Since it was the state-peoples who were the law makers and who breathed life into the compact, their understanding of what the compact meant at the time of ratification is the proper standard for how the Constitution should be interpreted (after 1789 and, at least, until Civil War Amendments, but even these might not have radically changed the legal balance of power between the states and the federal government). With this in mind, Hamilton, Marshall, Clay, Webster, and Lincoln can be viewed as interlopers who tried steal away the official construction. But then again, it ultimately took a federal-government-led war of conquest in the 1860s to ensure the de facto (but probably not de jure) supremacy of the federal power. Don’t let the defenders of the false Hamiltonian, Whig, and, later, GOP constitutional constructions at tonight’s debate tell you any differently.
Might a transcript or podcast become available?
Perhaps a little Abbey and Bierce in the arsenal might grant victory to the localists over the Federalists.
Then again, both sides need to remain ever-vigilant against the chiliastic compulsions of the armchair philosopher. Mao, of course, fashioned himself a “localist”. He liked to use the locals to bludgeon his way into bloodthirsty crusading nationalism.
If only irony were a form of energy. But then, it would be speedy trip to daft conclusions.
It was a marvelous debate – and well-attended, to boot. An audio recording was made, and I will announce here when it is available on the Tocqueville Forum website. In the meantime, there are hours of great archived material to peruse.
Comments are closed.