A confederation allows for citizens to live with more freedom. The state governments are the embodiment of the people. When an upper line of authority invokes itself onto the people, the people often rebell, causing chaos because the people have no say. Example - Shay’s rebellion: the federal government started taking away farmers land that couldn’t afford the poll taxes without having recognition of the citizens inalienable right to pursue their happiness (ownership of their own property). A confederation, on the other hand, does not have a federal government hovering over the state government telling the people no or trying to control them. The people get the final say and can have a voice when it comes to their lives.

A standing army is not necessary. The saying goes “if it’s not broke don’t fix it.” Have our militias failed us yet? In 1775, local militias independently defeated British troops in the American Revolution. By having militias, we are relying on our own citizens, keeping our republics small. In Shay’s rebellion for example, the militia refused to fight the farmers because they knew it wasn’t right. Militias stick up for what’s right because they are ordinary citizens.

Standing armies allow for the government to turn on its citizens. A standing army is run and funded by the federal government. This entails that the government has more of an appeal to those who are within standing army because they “have power to ...raise and support armies” (article 1, section 8). And, due to the necessary and proper clause, if the government feels as though their people are out of line, even if they are using their freedoms expressed within the declaration, congress has the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” (necessary and proper clause). If the federal government has the power to both pay its shoulders and make the decisions on when to attack then they have the ability to go after its own citizens.

The Anti-Federalists wanted a militia instead of a standing army since they are apart of the population. Madison said that if a standing army coming into the state, there will be a militia waiting for them at the border of the state. “they have always been complained of as oppressive and unconstitutional, and are seldom employed in executing of the laws.”

The Necessary and Proper Clause is very vague and allows the government to encroach on the rights of the people. It states in section 8 of article 1, “...which shall be necessary and proper...” as well as “...the supreme law of the land…”. The Bill of Rights would guarantee the people their rights and “plug the hole” in the clauses. The Bill of Rights would protect the people by limiting the government. For example the 6th Amendment ensures a fair trial, which in turn would keep people who speak out against the government safe. Another example is the 2nd Amendment or the right to bear arms which would protect the state’s militias and therefore the state’s sovereignty as well.

The necessary and proper clause at the end of Article 1, Section 8 gives the central government too much power. As stated in Brutus I, "The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation. It is as much one complete government as that of New-York or Massachusetts, has as absolute and perfect powers to make and execute all laws, to appoint officers, institute courts, declare offences, and annex penalties..." The clause is too vague, and it opens up the opportunity for the central government to shut out the state governments. If the state governments are shut out, what place will the people have in our government? What if the central government passed legislation that rendered state legislature useless under the claim that it was necessary for the betterment of the country?

The necessary and proper clause states, "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,” which allows the government to make any laws they feel are necessary. The Bill of Rights is necessary to safeguard the individual rights of a person. The Bill of Rights established many of the individual freedoms granted to the people. Without the Bill of Rights, the necessary and proper clause would allow the government to take the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Religion (Amendment 1) away from the people if they felt it was necessary.

We need a Bill of Rights. The Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the power “to make laws that should be necessary and proper.” This is too broad and gives the government the ability to invade the rights of the citizens. It is inevitable that without The Bill of Rights, our liberties will be taken away. The Bill of Rights is crucial in protecting the promised liberties of the people. The 2nd amendment for example, states that the government cannot force people to allow soldiers to live in their homes. Another example is the 8th amendment protecting citizens from excessive fines and punishments.

The supremacy clause is a threat to the power of state legislatures. The fact that federal law overrides state law makes state legislatures seem powerless. The author of Brutus I had similar thoughts. “It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void…” (Brutus I). In the case of Shays and his group of rebels, they followed exactly what was said in the Declaration. They felt that their rights to property were violated, so they fought back. If the federal government would have passed legislature to grant the banks power to take that land AND had a standing army to enforce those laws, the states would have been powerless to fight back, and the federal government would kill anyone who tried to stand up for their rights.

Higher taxes imposed by the national government minimizes the amount of taxing the state can impose which makes it harder for the state to maintain a militia, support infrastructure, and keep the state’s sovereignty. This infringes upon Article II of the Articles of Confederation which states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated…”. The national government would prevent the states from having tariffs. It says in Brutus I, “No state can emit paper money -- lay any duties, or imposts, on imports, or exports, but by consent of the Congress…”. This directly contravenes the Articles of Confederation because the state’s sovereignty would “dwindle away, and, as observed, their powers absorbed in that of the general government.”

The Necessary and Proper clause is very vague and unlawful because governments could use this clause to pass any law if they deemed it necessary/beneficial to the Nation. They would be also be allowed to take property according to the Necessary and Proper clause. The Fifth Amendment talks about how the government can not take away life, liberty, or property from citizens without due process of law. Private Property can not be taken for public use, without just composition.“A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution, all powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, is a power very comprehensive and definite, and may, for ought I know, be exercised in a such manner as entirely to abolish the state legislatures.” (Brutus I) This talks about how the Necessary and Proper clause could lead to the central government abolishing state governments.

The Necessary and Proper Clause was very ill-defined and gave too much freedom to the Federal Government because it gave them the power to do anything they wish and claim that it was necessary for the success or benefit of the nation. As stated in Brutus 1, “but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defense.” This could lead to the federal government taking over and abolishing the state government as a whole or even taxing very large amounts of money by just saying that it is necessary.

A standing army will not only be unnecessary to protect the United States but also could be detrimental to the success of the country.With a standing army the ruler could decide to take over and become a tyrant with the help of his standing army. In Brutus 1 it says, “It might be here shown, that the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their control over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty.” This claims that the ability of the federal government to make their own army whenever they want goes against the freedoms the citizens have. Also, he states that if they are not allowed to assemble militias that it goes against the free will given to them and their liberty as a whole. If the federal government left us with no militias and themselves with a standing army we would have no way to defend ourselves if the started a tyranny.

Standing Armies are a risk to our government because they could become tyrannical and go against the will of the people. Well-regulated militias would be for the people because it is a proper, natural, and safe defence of the states. The second amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. “A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of the citizens, it must be so constructed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the people” (Brutus I). Militias are needed in a free republic to execute its laws.

The federal government should not have the power to tax citizens or the states. If they were given the ability to do so they would tax unfairly and to the point where it is harmful to people. A claim in Brutus 1 says, “this power therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please.” This claim is saying that the federal government, if given the power to tax, could tax any amount they want without any reasonable explanation. This would not only hurt the people or citizens of the United states but could ultimately leave them with no money or power to do anything.

The new taxing power is going to be bad for the states because the central government will be able to place/collect unfair taxes on whatever they please. This will lead to direct taxation in the states. “The only mean therefore left, for any state to support its government and discharge its debts, is by direct taxation; and the United States have also power to lay and collect taxes, in any way they please” (Brutus I). The state governments powers will be absorbed by the general government if they are allowed to tax whenever and whatever they want.

A standing army is not necessary to protect the United States. A standing army would get rid of the integrity that the militias have. The militias have proved many times that they will not stand up and fight for things they know are wrong including Shay’s Rebellion. A standing army would be an aristocratic army where people who had a very high societal status would be calling the shots, while in militias, which is led by normal citizens, will look out for the best interest of the people.

The new taxation powers of the government will take the power from the states. These powers allow the federal government to enforce any tax it desires. This includes taxes that could be detrimental to the state governments. This also takes away the state’s ability to collect tariffs where a majority of the state funding comes from. Brutus 1 discusses that the states will be forced to put a direct taxation on its people to pay off debts owed to the federal government. This will lead to more unnecessary taxes being placed on the people. Overall, this takes a great deal of power from the states as the federal government will overshadow them.

“No state can emit paper money lay any duties, or imposts, on imports or exports, but by the consent of the Congress.” Once again you’re giving our powers to the Congress and this time states’ taxing power! Tariffs are an important source of money for our state governments. The only other tax left to states is property. So instead of taxing our citizen’s french perfume, you’re want me to tax their tomato patches?

A strong central government will not be able to represent the average citizen, being that it would be too far removed. The United States of America is too large for the central government to respond to the needs and worries of citizens who live far away in rural areas. The book states that “They (farmers and artisans), could not afford to travel to the capital city to debate and vote on laws.” The book also states that “Additionally, they did not think it possible, nor they trust, that educated, wealthy men from established families could represent the interests of the bulk of the population. What did a Boston banker know of the needs of a Western Massachusetts blacksmith.” At this time, this was very important because a large majority of citizens lived outside of the city in rural areas.

Standing armies are too great a threat to the freedom of the people. Militias are clearly a far better option for national defense. Standing armies give the central government too much control over the obedience of citizens. When the government puts a law into place, they will use the standing army to enforce that law and punish offenders. Brutus I stated that, “where a standing army is at hand to punish offenders, every man is actuated by the latter principle, and therefore, when the magistrate calls, will obey…” Another problem with standing armies is that they are trained to obey orders no matter what. If a Delaware native is told to fire upon a group of New Yorkers, he would comply without hesitation, but if he were told to fire upon his friends and family, he would put up resistance. The later situation is found in militias. The soldiers in a militia are fellow citizens, so they wouldn’t kill their friends and family just because the government tells them to.

Anti-federalist feel as if a standing army is not needed nor do they have a place in our states. Because this standing army could be used to intimidate our independent states into something that we do not agree with. Brutus 1 states, “ standing armies are kept up to execute the commands of the prince or the magistrate, and are employed for this purpose when occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty”.

as an anti-federalist, I feel as if the necessary and proper clause is way too powerful. It is vague and states, “a power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution, all powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the united states...entirely to abolish the state legislatures”.(Brutus 1) This shows how this clause could allow congress to do anything that they see fit even abolish state courts if they sought it necessary.

as an anti-federalist, I feel as if the supremacy clause is too powerful. It grants the central government’s courts more power than state courts. It also allows congress to not only put courts in Washington, but also anywhere they deem “necessary and proper”. This would render the state courts useless. Brutus 1 states, “ these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts.”

The Anti-Federalists wanted their laws to stay in the state to where the state had their own laws and did not have to follow the national government’s laws. “ The supremacy clause has the potentiality to transform America from a system of confederated states into a complete consolidated government.” The Tenth Amendment says, “That any power that is not given to the federal government is given to the people or the states.”

We want the bill of rights because it will prevent the central government from becoming too powerful. If we do not it would be as if we were still under the control of England. The Bill of Rights were wanted so badly by the anti federalist because it was necessary to safeguard individual rights and liberty. In the Great Compromise it states that, “Additionally, states had their own bills of rights that protected individual liberties like freedom of speech and religion.”

We want small governments because it will allow us to have more freedom and be more independent.The Articles of Confederation will give states the rights and power that they deserve. Without small governments it is no different than if we were to be under the rule of England again. “No state legislature, or any power in the state governments, have any more to do in carrying this into effect, than the authority of one state has to do with that of another.”