What made me curious was that I think that at the time, many commentators, in fact federalists and federalists, had a hard time imagining the power that the president could wield. These did not correspond to the fact that America was actually working. What is interesting is that the antif-dederlists have argued for the traditional way of doing things. They said, « Look, we had these little republics for a long time. We have since independence, but we have had it at the colonial level for a long time and during the history back Montesquieu and earlier. In fact, probably my favorite anti-federalist was Brutus and he has several different documents in which he would say a kind of great predictive force: « What is going to happen here is that the Supreme Court will consider this vague language, this ambiguous language in the constitution. It will then recognize national power and give legitimacy to the usurpations of Congress, and over time there will be a consolidated government. It takes a lot of time, but certainly through the new agreement, looks like Brutus predicts things of pus 100%. They have not had any really strong positive examples. They did not have the obvious opportunity to know how much political power the presidency would have. I think one of the big puzzles, something I think I have to leave your listener with a puzzle more than a solution, is that the anti-federalists were obsessed with the wrong institution. They were more worried about the Senate. You should have cared about the president. Roses: [00:14:50] Thanks for this response. I must confess that the debate on Federalist 39 was one I had when I was a first-year law student with Akhil Amar my admired teacher.

I said that the federalists had not solved the question of which people were sovereign and federalist.39 It took (inaudible) and civil war to settle it in Wilson`s favor. Alexander Hamilton, a former chief of staff to George Washington, was a supporter of a strong federal government and founded the federalist party. He helped oversee the development of a national bank and a tax system. Other federalists of the time were John Jay and John Adams. Federalists believe that when this system worked, it did not really have a significant amount of stability. What would happen? They felt that the level of the state was that legislators would pass laws that would use their powers for themselves. One of the things that the federalists argued was an executive veto, which did not exist in most states. In fact, some of the time even made arguments it would be dangerous, that would be a bad thing. They also argued that this was not necessary. Not the antif-dedererlists. They felt in many states, in state constitutions, that there were bills. It was a traditional protection of the freedom of the people, and they wanted it at the federal level.

The fact that it was not in the U.S. constitution made them very suspicious. That is a very important aspect. We owe the Bill of Rights to the fact that the federalists insisted. Marshall says, « No, that`s not it. » This is repeated because it is ultimately defective. I think you`re absolutely right. It goes as far as civil war and attitude across the South.