The anti-federalist papers of 1787 remain to be some of the most fundamental studies carried out with the sole aim of bringing out the shortcomings of the constitution that was about to be ratified. Though the papers were written by the authors who wanted to hide their identities, they did achieve some fundamental goals that led to the improvement of the constitution that was in the process of development.
Although the authors may have appeared retrogressive as they were opposed to the new constitution, it is important to acknowledge that their criticism led to identification of the major weaknesses in the document that was to be ratified to become the governing bench of the United States of America (Putz, 2009, P. 87).
According to Brutus, the author of anti-federalist paper number eighty four and many others, the constitution lacked the foresight and thus failed to take into account the future generations (Dougherty, 2009, P. 54).
Brutus was of the idea that if the American society were to ratify a constitution that would provide a harmonious living for the generations to come, there would be no need to ensure that the rights of the individuals are protected by the constitution.
The document to be ratified failed to recognize that people in a natural setting were always after their own benefit, thus posing a great danger to the others as one’s pursuit of pleasure may conflict with the other’s intentions.
Brutus envisaged that if there were no other forces in place to govern the men, then the weaker mortals would be disadvantaged by the stronger ones. Thus, according to the anti-federalist paper on human rights, the constitution was to recognize that future generations needed to be protected from the possible abuse due to breaches in the main law.
From the analysis of the assertions contained in the paper number eighty four, it is clear that the constitution that was in the process of being ratification contained some serious flows, and thus, it required attention to be paid to the areas of concern.
Therefore, it is important to note that the anti-federalist paper served as an alternative voice by helping to pinpoint spheres that needed to be rectified to ensure that the constitution that was in the process of becoming the law had the capacity to protect the interest of all the subjects (Lim, 2011, pp. 76-77).
The papers managed to introduce the new fundamental changes into the constitution even though some of them were instituted after the constitution had been ratified. For example, the institution of the bill of rights which addressed the concerns that were raised by Brutus in his anti-federalist paper number eighty four was approved after the constitution had been adopted.
Apart from the role of acting as the alternative voice for the proponents of the new constitution, the papers represented an independent view that probably was not affected by the euphoria of having a new constitution in place.
According to Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, (2005, P. 152), the anti-federalist papers showed that the constitution that was in the process of development required a serious consideration to make sure that it effectively manages all the affairs of the country and its subjects.
It is clear that the constitution in the process of being ratified failed to recognize what may have happened in the future and heavily relied on the country’s stability of regimes in the past as well as during the period of the proposed enactment.
The anti-federalists through their papers managed to attract attention to many burning issues that although their main assertions seemed to be illogical at the time, needed to ensure that the stability of the unborn generations was guaranteed.
In the anti-federalist paper number eighty four that raises the issues of fundamental rights of the citizens, Brutus reminds Americans that brutal regimes needed a constitutional backing to ensure that the fundamental rights of the citizens are not violated.
He helped arouse the sense that even though the people had no immediate problem with a brutal regime, they had no clear ability to determine the nature of the future leaders as they are known to change their behavior and views once they take office.
It is this possibility that made the author of the paper believe that passing a constitution that could infringe the human rights was a dangerous undertaking for Americans (Storing, 1981, P. 7).
Today, the rights of the American citizens are entrenched in the constitution through the elaborate bill of rights. The journey towards the inclusion of this important segment in the constitution can be traced to the anti-federalist paper number eighty four that criticizes the main law due to its lack of a clear stand on human rights.
As stated in the paper, it is important that certain quarters surrender some portions of their natural freedom for effective administration of a balanced society.
The enactment of the bill of rights guarantees that natural freedom is balanced, so those who may benefit from violating the fundamental rights of others would be restricted. Thus, the anti-federalist paper number eighty four was of great significance as it helped shape the future bill of rights adopted in the current constitution.
Reference List
Dougherty, KL 2009, ‘An Empirical Test of Federalist and Anti-Federalist Theories of State Contributions, 1775-1783‘, Social Science History, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 47-74.
Hamilton, A, Madison, J, & Jay, J 2005 The federalist. Hackett Publishing, New York, NY.
Lim, ET 2011, ‘The Anti-Federalist Strand in Progressive Politics and Political Thought’, Political Research Quarterly, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 68-84.
Putz, A 2009, Viewing the Constitution-Making Process – Need, “Danger” and (Non)Sense of a Bill of Rights: A Comparative Analysis of the United States of America and Europe. BoD, New York.
Storing, HJ 1981, The Complete Anti-Federalist, Volume 1, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.