http://www.purevolume.com/quiteso

new songs

myspace.com/utcp

new songs soon

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/08/AR2007080802112.html?hpid=topnews

The inevitable consequence of the primary campaign frenzy beginning so early this season is that the primaries themselves will get pushed earlier and earlier. The incentives to do so are at least twofold: 1) A state with an earlier primary receives more prestige from press coverage and the all-important appearance of being "relevant;" the states attempt to prove their significance on the national political scene by simple changes on the calendar, thus proving how arbitrary any such importance is. 2) All sorts of money gets dumped in to a key state's economy (i.e. Iowa, New Hampshire) during primary season: TV ads, paid staff, increased restaurant revenue, etc. So now, South Carolina is telling us that it is so fucking important that it will hold its primary on January 19th, and this was brought about by Florida trying to push its primary ahead of South Carolina's by 4 days; the Post says this is part of the competition to be "First in the South." First in the South?
So, there are obvious ramifications for the New Hampshire primary (first in the nation, assholes), which had a tentative date of January 22nd. Frankly, guys, New Hampshire just doesn't give a fuck. Last election the primary was on the 27th and in 2000, February 1st. In fact, the state law is that the primary must always be first in the country. (Here's an interesting thought: what if South Carolina or Florida passed such a law? Neat!). Universally beloved Secretary of State Bill Gardner has promised not to make a decision until fall, probably, but we know it will be January 12th or earlier.
This is stupid.
Another inevitable consequence of the earlier and earlier frenzy of primary bullcrap is voter apathy. This Gallup Poll shows that the percent of democrats "extremely likely" to vote in their primary went down 6 points from July, and the percent "not likely" to vote at all increased by 2. This is a small sample, and not a very big shift, but it's early still. We still have at least four more months (god willing) and 67 debates/forums and 93,642 TV commercials and 890 mailings and 133canvassers until the first primary actually happens; then, it will presumably all be decided on February 5th, when 1433 delegates (democratic primary) and like a million states vote. So then, that's only about 6 months until the convention (which will most likely not be decisive), and then another 3 months until the actual election. As WMUR painfully reminds us, there are still 453 days until the actual election. 453 DAYS!

My guess is we have about 500 days until the 2012 Iowa Caucus.


Deep breaths...

Ice Cube Tray Relativity: the Special and the General Theory

Introduction
So, I just finished reading Walter Isaacson's biography of Einstein, and I realized that to be an important person like Einstein or Copernicus or Barry Bonds, one needs to come up with a revolutionary scientific theory with a sweeping, world-changing impact. You need to toss out the old norms and break free from the chains of the dominating conventional wisdom to produce an all-encompassing work of scientific--nay, philosophical genius. The Relativity Theory, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, and the 756th homer procured by steroids all defied the status quo of absolute space-time, geocentrism, and Hank Aaron (and good, clean sportsmanship), respectively.
Well, needless to say, I have arrived at my own factious theory. I call it Ice Cube Tray Relativity.
Historically, the wonted approach to filling an ice cube tray has been to turn on the water faucet at a fairly quick rate and move the tray around 'neath the flow until each cube has reached its capacity. This method is flawed in that it often, through faulty measurement and impatience on the part of the filler, results in uneven and over-flowed cubes with water breaching the individual cubes.

Hypothesis
Einstein dreamed up Special Relativity whilst working as a patent clerk in Bern; I discovered my great theory will festering about in the homes of poor, misinformed people filling their ice trays in a misconceived, wanton manner. There are two major flaws in the conventional approach. 1) An overflowed tray will make individual cubes harder to break apart from what is now one whole block of ice, producing dropped cubes and the subsequent weird, wet spots on the kitchen floor. 2) Uneven filling will lead to an inconsistency in cube size; some cubes will be smaller-than-normal, while others will be obtusely large; this may result in quicker tray depletion and expedite the need for refilling as more cubes will be needed to compensate for their diminutive volume.
Instead, I have my own photo-illustrated approach which I predict will prevent these problems. A little more patience, tact, and attentiveness on the part of the person filling the tray will produce rewarding results for your next chilled beverage experience/peculiar sexual ritual. The process can be broken down into steps.

1) With an empty ice tray in hand, turn on a cold water faucet to a slow flow. It should not be dripping, but if the water is bubbly and white it is too fast.
2) Insert the tray below the running water at a slight tilt, maybe 10 degrees or so, and allow the water to flow over each cube while keeping the tray still, and the water from the faucet over the same general area of the tray. Think: the watertight bulkheads overflowing on the RMS Titanic. This is more or less the effect that you should try to achieve, but preferably without drowning fifteen hundred people.
3) Maintain this process, letting the water spread downward. When you have between 5 and 5 1/2 cube's empty space remaining, remove the tray from beneath the water and turn off the faucet.
4) With both hands, while still over the sink to avoid spills, tilt the tray as necessary until all the cubes are filled and even.

Prediction
When the water has evened out, you should end up with a tray with evenly filled, yet not overflowing cubes.

Conclusion
This was a massive waste of a small part of my valuable youth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/washington/03health.html

Photos:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/washington/15child.html

The White House said on Saturday that President Bush would veto a bipartisan plan to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, drafted over the last six months by senior members of the Senate Finance Committee.

The program, which insured 7.4 million people at some time in the last year, is set to expire Sept. 30.
AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHWHAT THE FUCKING FUCK!

KIDS!
HEALTH INSURANCE!
KIDS WITH HEALTH INSURANCE!
IN WHAT WAY IS THAT OBJECTIONABLE?
The purported objections:
-an increase in the cigarette tax (boohoo the reason this is an issue is because republicans/politicians in general are propped up by tobacco money)
-that increasing the plan's coverage will cause people to drop their private coverage in favor of the government program (guess what the insurance industries give their money to republicans too)



i hate george w. bush.

but you know what i don't hate?

cows and cats on farms.

Some recent photos:




My reflection/silhouette is visible in this one.

Hi, How Are We?


Coherent posts, eventually.
First: pay off the sleep deficit.

Books that I am reading:
Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 by Hunter S. Thompson
Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan

Books I have been meaning to read:
Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce
An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser
History of the French Revolution by Thomas Carlyle (yeah, right)

I saw Wilco last night at the [Insert Corporate Bank Sponsor] Pavilion in Boston. It was pretty good. I saw them last summer at Metropolis in Montreal from about 20 feet away, and my seats in L36 section 6 didn't quite size up to that occasion, but they played a badass show which only vaguely resembled anything from their mediocre and disappointing new album. The new songs took on a fresh and more vibrant life live, with $$ Nels Cline performance on everything, except for when his guitar wasn't turned up in the PA on part of one song (slops).

Also, for the two encores, a couple of gentlemen moved in front of me and decided to hold a jovial conversation whilst not applauding songs for the remainder of the performance. I would like to address that annoyance in list form:
1. Shut the fuck up.
2. [Insert Corporate Bank Sponsor] Pavilion you need to turn your PA up for those of us in L36 section 6.
3. What the fuck, guys. One or more of you paid money to be there, and you chose it as the time to converse? Do you think what you have to say could possibly be more worthwhile than the sounds made by 6 professionals who incited hundreds of people to congregate in the same place at the same time? Maybe you should get a talk radio show, because those guys are dicks, too.
4. It was obvious the one guy was a dick when the only song he acknowledged in any way was from A.M., Wilco's first and least original work. I don't care how pretentious I may be; at least I don't chat it the fuck up during shows.
5. Shut the fuck up, go fuck yourselves, and get the fuck out of the [Insert Corporate Bank Sponsor] Pavilion if you don't want to be there.


I checked out Iowa, here is what it looks like.

Also, I turn 21 on Monday, which I'm told, is the legal drinking age.

k'js3u0-=ufr6
4+8

gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Hey Iowa,
If you have so much corn why is it so hard to find vegetables in your state's restaurants?

meatmeatmeatmeat
meat

My trip to the Giuliani headquarters with Taylor was unsuccessful, yet eventful. The passenger van and two Escalades out front were indicative of something unusual afoot. We entered and spoke to two sharply dressed, confused twenty-somethings who informed us that the Mayor himself was in a meeting and about to head to a speech, and that there would be no one in the office to respond to our suspicious inquiries. Being a shaggy-haired college student in a Republican campaign office is like the first day of middle school; everyone looks at you funny and nobody wants to be friends. It seemed to me that our friends in the Grand Old Party were a bit distrustful of our stated intentions, and may have been more accommodating had we donned well-pressed suits with pin stripes. Feeling despondent and dejected, we decided to wait outside in what was quickly becoming a sadistically humid and sweltering day, hoping to at least get a photo with the candidate to serve as defense of our unique situation. Rudy was running about an hour late apparently, and we were going to have to be quick. Apparent big wigs with good grooming, beaming, sauntered past us after confused and awkward glances, and then Mr. Giuliani himself. “Mr. Mayor,” I pleaded, “could we get a couple pictures real quick?” Unenthused, he complied while his aides reminded us what super big hurry this super important gentleman was in. The photos were snapped without incident, and that concluded my visit with Rudy Giuliani.

http://www.firstinthenationproject.org/students.html

-live from Iowa-

Hi.
I'm in Waverly Iowa being a "First in the Nation Scholar." It involves analysis of various aspects of the 2008 presidential campaign. We are at Wartburg College doing some learning and talking to people and asking people questions and doing field trips and other great and fun things.
We went to the literal field of dreams(tm).
There is lots of corn.
And now they are closing the computer lab.
Bye.

Thought: My hair is too long.
Suggestion: Enough with the all the construction and detours!

I went to a Subway sandwich shop today to get a Subway sandwich; inside, on the wall, to the right of the cash register was a framed certificate stating that the location won the award for cleanliness in 1995. Upon reading this, I carefully calculated how many years it has been since 1995. Satisfied, I ordered my sandwich.




Today in class ( a summer class about the presidency and the primaries and other such business) we were looking at some polls some dude (dr. dude) had done. I don't understand why the polls on primary candidates for president are including people like Chuck Hagel, George Pataki, Wesley Clark, and Als Gore and Sharpton. Their respective non-candidacies and non-campaigns make their inclusion in these and other polls somewhat puzzling. Is it just because they haven't ruled it out? I don't get it. Wayne Brady hasn't dismissed a 2008 bid. Political polling is supposed to be scientific and as precise as possible. Hey people-who-do-polling, why not only ask people if they're going to vote for who's running for president? It would be a big help.

I did this up for a class tonight. Maybe something on clouds tomorrow.

Ry Amidon

Write-Up on Abortion, Three Candidates

June 12, 2007

Abortion

The issue of abortion rights has been a prominent and contentious issue in American politics for decades and its controversy does not seem likely to fade from the spotlight in 2008. The question of abortion is a major aspect of presidential politics because, beyond limitations such as “partial-birth” bans, consent laws, and waiting periods it is entirely a federal matter; Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113), decided in 1973 under the Burger court, mandated that the right to of a woman to have an abortion was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment[i] and struck down all state laws prohibiting abortion. The democratic candidates are fairly unified on this issue, and are all pro-choice; little attention need be paid. Republicans take differing positions on the matter, with some opposing abortion procedures with certain exceptions, including at least one pro-choicer. Some, such as Arizona Senator John McCain write overtly of “overturning” the 1973 Supreme Court decision[ii]. Any president’s ability to “overturn” is limited to indirect methods, due to the separation of the three branches of government; all he/she could do is hope for a more liberal justice of the High Court to peace out or keel over to allow for the appointment of an adjudicator who will adjudicate in favor of abortion restrictions. Stevens, a moderate-to-liberal Ford appointee (long may he live) looks like a good candidate. The replacement of a moderate or liberal judge with a conservative one would tip the ideological balance of the Court safely to the conservatives:

A List of the Pretty Conservative Supreme Court Justices[iii]:

-Alito

-Thomas

-Roberts

-Scalia

Moderates:

-Kennedy

-Souter

Liberals:

-Bader-Ginsburg

-Stevens

-Breyer

So, if a judge such as Stevens were replaced by another Thomas or Alito, the conservatives would have a solid 5, the majority needed to decide a case. Presidential candidates (and possibly the voting public, too) are very aware of this scenario and most make clear their stance on abortion, though some have records that indicate a change of mind. Here is what the deal is.

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is pro-life, the pure, simple, and old-fashioned way. As president, he says he would protect life at every stage. This war-enthusiast says he hopes that “one day America will remember the value we once placed on human life”[iv]. Maybe one day, Senator.

Former governor of Virginia Jim Gilmore is opposed to abortion, and did everything in his power to restrict in during his tenure there including: a waiting period, parental notification, and “partial-birth” ban[v]. Interestingly enough, the state’s motto, “Sic semper tyrannis” is what John Wilkes Booth said after he killed our 16th president.

Former American Hero—errr- New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is in favor of “reasonable restrictions[vi]” on abortion, which in the English language means he believes there is a right to abortion, but would like to see fewer of them; he does not want Roe overturned but will ecstatically support parental notification and the usual ban on “partial birth” business.

Former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee opposes abortion rights[vii]. Yawn. His state’s motto is “Regnat populus.” It means the people rule, and was instituted during the Civil War.

California Congressman Duncan Hunter is not afraid to get specific about his opposition to abortion rights. He would support a Right to Life amendment to the Constitution. He has proudly cosponsored many pieces of legislation limiting abortion and other fetus-related acts. He also opposes “Fetus Farming,” and having government funded abortions for soldiers or their dependents overseas[viii]. Neat.

Arizona Senator John McCain, as mentioned above would like to overturn Roe v Wade. He says he will nominate judges who won’t confuse their judicial rule with a legislative one, and that it the government should make it easier for a woman to give birth to an unwanted child “by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need.[ix]” He would also promote the practice of adoption.

A US Representative of Texas, Ron Paul, says that Roe was “wrongly decided” and that the matter should be left up to the states. Ron is also for banning “partial birth” abortions[x].

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo also believes Roe v Wade was “wrongly decided,” and sees it as a state issue. Also, Tom thinks we need education on “the potential life-long medical problems and emotional scarring associated with abortions[xi]”. (That's a good idea, Tom we should do the same thing for people who want to enlist in the military!)

Former Wisconsin Governor and Health and Human Services Secretary Thomas “Tommy” Thompson says that he is pro-life, and touts having signed one of the first bans on “partial birth” abortion; he promises to appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the bench[xii].

Actor/Former Tennessee Senator/Red-Truck Leaser Fred Thompson has only just kicked off his run for office. His stance on the abortion issue is kind of unclear right now and remains to see what his officially stated position will be. In the past he has supported Roe and characterized abortion as a personal decision with which the government has no right to interfere[xiii]. His website is called I’m With Fred!

Former Massachusetts Governor with “shoulders you could land a 737 on[xiv]” Mitt Romney states on his website that he is pro-life with the exception of cases of rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother[xv]. However, in a 1994 senate campaign he claimed to support abortion rights[xvi].

The abortion rights issue is a crucial one for republican candidates because it can help determine two important factors: the percentage of the moderate vote that they get, the percentage of the coveted conservative Christian vote that they get. A more pro-choice opinion would probably increase the former while a strict pro-life stance would attract conservatives.

Romney, Tancredo, Dodd

Mitt Romney (R), a Mormon, was elected Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2002, and after serving a term decided that he would rather be president of the United States. Romney has an MBA and a JD from Harvard and was a participant in well-paying business ventures in the eighties and nineties before becoming President and CEO of the organizing committee for the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, claiming to have erased a multi-million dollar deficit[xvii]. The governor’s biggest problem in this election may be his changes of opinion on some key social issues. He claims to be pro-life, but ran as a pro-choicer in a 1994 senate race; Romney also says he is against same sex marriages and civil unions, despite having supported such a law in his own state as governor[xviii]. Motives aside, it is clear that the former governor of a very liberal state has moved farther to the right on some controversial social issues, and explaining these switches clearly may pose a challenge to his campaign. He is in third place in CNN polls in Iowa[xix] and New Hampshire[xx].

Chris Dodd (D)is a senator from Connecticut who has been a member of Congress since 1975[xxi]. Like the other democratic senators running for president who were serving at the time, Dodd voted to authorize the Iraq War in 2002[xxii]. That has turned out to be kind of unpopular with a lot of people, and if the Senator wishes to gain the confidence of voting liberals his campaign will have to do what Edwards, Clinton, and Biden also must do which is succinctly defend or excuse the vote and lay out a comprehensible plan for the future.

Tom Tancredo (R), a US Representative from Colorado is a fairly conservative type whose biggest issue is immigration. “As President, I will secure our borders so illegal aliens do not come, and I will eliminate benefits and job prospects so they do not stay,” says Tancredo[xxiii]. He holds conservative positions on most major issues and is currently polling at about 2 percent according to CNN[xxiv].

---

[i] http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18/ [All sites accessed June 11, 2007]

[ii] http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

[iii] These categorizations are my own estimates, and not based on any sort of verifiable fact.

[iv] http://www.brownback.com/s/Issues/tabid/60/Default.aspx#Life

[v] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/jim.gilmore.html

[vi] http://www.joinrudy2008.com/index.php?section=2

[vii] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/mike.huckabee.html

[viii] http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4

[ix] http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

[x] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/ron.paul.html

[xi] http://www.teamtancredo.com/tancredo_issues_index.asp

[xii] http://www.tommy2008.com/On_The_Issues.aspx

[xiii] http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr070600.html

[xiv] http://mediamatters.org/items/200706060004

[xv] http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Values

[xvi] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/mitt.romney.html

[xvii] http://www.mittromney.com/Learn-About-Mitt/Mittxs_Biography

[xviii] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/mitt.romney.html

[xix] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/iowa.html

[xx] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/new.hampshire.html

[xxi] http://www.chrisdodd.com/about

[xxii] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/chris.dodd.html

[xxiii] http://www.teamtancredo.com/tancredo_issues_index.asp

[xxiv] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/tom.tancredo.html

Ry Amidon

American Political Thought – Anti-Federalism

November 10, 2006

When the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, rather than modifying the Articles of Confederation as planned, announced its plan for a new government in September, 1787 the response was not unified. Publicly, opinion was divided into two camps. Those in favor of the Constitution are historically known as the Federalists, and those opposed are referred to as Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists held in common several criticisms of the proposed Constitution, including: the lack of a Bill of Rights, a tendency towards aristocratic rule, the comparatively small size of the Senate and House of Representatives, the supremacy of the Federal government, and the consolidation of the thirteen states into what they believed was too large of a republic. The Anti-Federalist arguments had their imperfections as well as strengths. Some were in my assessment, unrealistic, petty, or speculative. Other concerns were far-sighted, poignant, or enlightening. I will examine the Anti-Federalist concerns, their merits, and shortcomings in this essay.

The greatest legacy of the Anti-Federalist movement is the Bill of Rights, as there was none included at the time of ratification. The framers of the Constitution had concluded that one was unneeded, because the people were reserved all rights not explicitly sacrificed in the Constitution. This is in line with the Social Contract Theory, which states that citizens give up certain rights in the formation of a government but retain those rights not taken, as long as they abide by the contract. The Framers did see a need to include some civil rights protections, however. Under Section 3 of Article 1, habeas corpus in legal proceedings was made mandatory, while titles of nobility and ex post-facto laws were prohibited. “The people surrender nothing,” Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist Paper number 84, “and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations” (Kammen 237). The Anti-Federalists were skeptical that the government would not encroach on the liberties of its citizens as people in power have historically been “ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the public liberty” (Kammen 315). This proved to be a valid concern when the Federalists, under the presidency of John Adams, passed the Sedition Act which criminalized the publication of “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about the government (5^th Congress, 2^nd Session, Ch 74, Sec 2). This was not the only such violation; a similar law restricting criticism of the government during war time was passed 120 years later under the Woodrow Wilson administration.

The Anti-Federalists wanted a Bill of Rights not only to protect individual rights, but also those of the states. Concerns about the extent and vagueness of federal authority led to the inclusion of a tenth article to the Bill of Rights. This amendment handed whatever powers not given to the federal government over to the states “or the people,” and was an important addition to a document championed by people concerned with retaining as much local control of their lives and government as possible.

The legislative branch was a point of concern for the Anti-Federalists because of its size, powers, and its approach to representation. “The federal representative branch will have but very little democracy in it,” as the Federal Farmer put it (Kammen 276). The proposed Senate at the time would be composed of twenty six members; the House would have sixty five members. Critics saw this as far too few representatives for a nation of millions, and were even more worried about how few legislators were required to do business. “The power of making any law,” writes the Federal Farmer,” will be in the president, eight senators, and seventeen representatives,” (Kammen 280); this is consistent with the Anti-Federalists concerns about the concentration of power and the distancing of law-making from the people under the proposed constitution.

The Federal Farmer was using a hypothetical situation to demonstrate the degree to which power could be concentrated, but the author is focusing on the worst-case scenario. Legislators may have a long distance to travel to the capitol, but the likelihood of only the bare minimum number of legislators showing up for business is slim.

Anti-Federalist writers predicted that such an unusually disproportionate (particularly when compared with the British Parliament) number of representatives and senators, as well as the powers they hold, would create a “strong tendency to aristocracy, or the government of the few” (Kammen 278). Having so few seats, Anti-Federalists argued, meant that political power on the national level would be available only to the most wealthy and elite members of society. Critics also noted that state legislatures at the time often had hundreds of members representing a population which was much smaller than the nation, which had fewer than one hundred representatives and senators for all thirteen of its states. Such a small group of people, the Anti-Federalists argued, would not possibly be able to represent all the diverse interests, beliefs, and needs of the people of such a vast country. As a result of this disconnect of the legislature from the common people, Anti-Federalists believed that the military would be needed to create compliance with the law. The Federal Farmer predicted a bleak future: “the general government, far removed from the people…will be forgot or neglected, and its laws in many cases disregarded, unless a multitude of officers and military force be continually kept in view…to make the government feared and respected” (Kammen 274). The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-4, when militias were called to quell an anti-federal tax uprising in Pennsylvania, appeared to validate this concern shortly after the implementation of the new government.

Anti-Federalists also saw some of the proposed representation methods as unfair. The infamous Three Fifths Compromise, which allowed every five slaves to count as three people when determining the number of representatives apportioned to a state. To Anti-Federalists, this made no sense. Slaves had no legal ability in government or society; they had no ability to vote, could not own property, etc. Slaves were legally property under the total control of their masters, and the Three Fifths Compromise allowed slave owners to use their property for their own political benefit. Federalists saw the Compromise as essential to the continuation of the Union, Anti-Federalists, like Brutus, saw it as an absurd policy: “If this be a just ground for representation, the horses in some of the states and the oxen in others, ought to be represented” (Kammen 320). This is a very strong point that the Anti-Federalists made, which ought to have received more attention because slave owners could continue importing slaves for several years to increase their state’s share of representatives, effectively buying seats in the legislature.

Anti-Federalists saw the powers given to Congress and the president as too broad and vague, while the framers of the constitution saw strong federal government as a necessity in the preservation and security of the country. Anti-Federalists would have preferred a federal government which had narrow, specific, and enumerated powers. Any power not specifically granted to the federal government should be reserved for the state and local government, which, according to the Anti-Federalists, were better able to consider the interests of their constituents. Another point of concern for Anti-Federalists was that Congress had control over the government’s funds, which in turn allowed them to control all other powers by cutting or increasing spending. This has proved to be true in that Congress can, and has forced states to change their laws or risk losing federal monies. For example, under a section of the Federal Highway Act (Title 23, Section 158) which was enacted in 1985, any state which has a drinking age lower than twenty one will lose ten percent of its Federal Highway funding. This turned out to be an effective way for Congress to control states’ drinking age laws; today not a single state in the union has a drinking age less than 21.

Anti-Federalists also thought the United States of America was too large of a country to be effectively governed by a federal republic which had far too few representatives for the new nation’s large and diverse population. It was also argued that a populace so varying in interests and political beliefs would tend to lose confidence in and connection with the federal government. Having so few legislators making decisions affecting such a large and diverse body of citizens would cause the common people to be “acquainted with very few of their rulers” (Kammen 311), and the rulers would likely know very few of the common people.

The sentiments of localities would not be as well represented as in state legislatures, which tended to have hundreds of members for the whole state as compared to fewer than a hundred members for the entire country. Anti-Federalists believed that the states were far better equipped to satisfy the numerous different demands of their citizens. They took to quoting Montesquieu, who popularized the belief that republics can not persist long over large areas. “In a small [republic],” Montesquieu wrote, “the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen” (Kammen 308). Anti-Federalists felt that in a country as large as the United States, there was no practical way that the government could be in touch with the interests, needs, and beliefs of the common folk.

This detachment, according to Anti-Federalist writers, could lead to domestic insurrection and despotism. If certain factions feel that their interests are not being represented in the legislative process then they can refuse to obey the laws. If civil disobedience is rampant, the government may choose to use the military to force cooperation. Government leaders might see this as useful tool to promote domestic peace and engage in it more often. Anti-Federalists saw this as one of the ways in which the United States constitution can lead to aristocracy.

The Anti-Federalists were fearful of the democratic-republic transforming into an aristocracy backed by a standing army. In history, there have been rebellious factions in the population that have been upset about a lack of representation, and they have been stopped by military force. This was seen in the Whiskey Rebellion as mentioned above, when citizens upset about tax laws rebelled against the government and were beaten by militia. However, political participation, rather than rebellion has been a more common tool of dissatisfied citizens, and domestic use of the military has not been a tool used too frequently by the federal government. Federalists also believed that the country was not too big for a republic. They saw the mixed form of government, the checks and balances, the administrative decentralization combined with governmental centralization, etc. as methods of controlling as well protecting local interests. This Anti-Federalist argument was somewhat unrealistic.

Some Anti-Federalist concerns about the Constitution have carried over to contemporary political culture: the “states’ rights” debate has been prevalent since the early days of the Constitution, even sparking a civil war, the United States has added thirty seven states since the early days of the Constitution which makes the “vast” thirteen state nation seem tiny and easy to run, and the Bill of Rights has become one of the most prominent and fought-over aspects of Constitutional law, and has proved to be very necessary in protecting individual liberties from infringements by the federal government.

Some of the Anti-Federalists’ arguments were valuable and influential in the formation of the constitution. They can claim credit to the first ten constitutional amendments known as the Bill of Rights, which the Framers did not even see as necessary, but have in countless circumstances been essential to the preservation of civil liberties. The absurdity of the Three Fifths Compromise was not apparent to most political leaders until much later, but Anti-Federalists were criticizing it from the start. Some arguments were unrealistic or unlikely situations, such as the bare-minimum of legislators showing up to do business, or the transformation from democracy to military despotism because of insufficient concern for local interests. Overall, the Anti-Federalists publicly pinpointed some important flaws in the Constitution, which aided in its modification towards a more perfect document.

Works Cited

The text of the Sedition Act can be found here:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi- bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719

Title 23 of the US Code is available here: http://epw.senate.gov/title23.pdf

Kammen, Michael Ed. The Origins of the American Constitution: A Documentary History. Penguin: New York. 1986