Finally, I must address a cry and thank Timothy Gartin of Ames, Iowa, who proposed this week`s podcast, the debate between federalists and anti-federalists. We people listeners, if you have any ideas for topics we should pick up, please let me know. There is another problem that Jack mentioned, and that is what kind of separation of powers do we want at the federal level? There is the anti-federalist point of view, which we could somehow call a strict separation of powers. They wanted the legislator to have the dominant power. They made all the laws, and then the executive would only enforce the laws and the judiciary would decide them. The Federalists, led mainly by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, believed that the formation of a great national government was not only possible, but necessary to “create a more perfect union” by improving relations between the states. Until then, the general belief that a republic could not function effectively was small and localized. Federalists questioned this belief, arguing that a strong national republic would better preserve the individual freedoms of the people. By expanding the sphere of the republic, individual and minority rights would be better protected against violations by a majority. The federalists also wanted to preserve the sovereignty and structure of the states. To this end, they advocated for a federal government with specific and delegated powers.

Anything that is not delegated to the federal government would be reserved for the people and the states. Ultimately, their goal was to preserve the principle of government through consent. By building a government based on popular sovereignty, without sacrificing state sovereignty, the legitimacy of the new government could be assured. Where all kinds of machinations are at work. Federalists say, “This traditional theory will not work under the circumstances in the United States. What we need to do is not assume that people will behave in such a means of community. We actually have to recognize that this is not the case and design the system in such a way that they verify each other. Rosen: [00:24:19] That`s a powerful answer. Mike, you can answer freely.

I hear what Jack says that federalists were far from expecting the Supreme Court to apply the initial restrictions on national power according to its original plan, but at least expected that the final balance between state and national power would be determined by politics. Therefore, the developments of the 20th century do not contradict this original conception. What do you say? Jack, tell us about the anti-federalist fear that mixing forces leads to tyranny. Again, to what extent do you think their fears have been confirmed or not? The Department of the Interior and other federal agencies have relaxed or eliminated rules and regulations introduced by previous presidents, canceled safety regulations for offshore drilling, given the green light to oil and gas pipeline projects, granted energy companies access to wildlife habitats, allowed increased deforestation of federal forests, and eased restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. coal. among other things, the changes (A Running List of How President Trump is Changing Environmental Policy, National Geographic). Rosen: [00:46:35] We have another big topic that we haven`t talked about, and that`s disagreement over whether the Bill of Rights was necessary or not. Rosen: [00:50:42] Mike, the last word for you is, how would you characterize the debate between federalists and anti-federalists about the need for a Bill of Rights, and who do you think had the best part of the debate? They didn`t really have strong positive examples. They had no obvious way of knowing how much political power the presidency would have.

I think one of the great mysteries, something I think I should leave to your listeners with an enigma more than a solution, is that the anti-federalists were obsessed with the wrong institution. They were more concerned about the Senate. They should have been more worried about the president. Rappaport: [00:33:19] I think I agree with Jack and the anti-federalists were looking with a somewhat classic theory of politics, which, as he says, took on a certain type of virtue. .