The Anti-Federalists are regarded as history’s losers. “The Anti-Federalists are regarded as history’s losers, defending an unworkable status quo. However, while the Federalists were correct to push for a new framework for government, the Anti-Federalists had important criticisms of the Constitution, many of which have since proved to be correct. Our current Constitution would be a stronger document if the Framers had worked harder during the Convention to incorporate their opponents’ concerns. This is particularly true in regards to the Supreme Court, which has far more power and influence in American life than the Framers had intended, or is good for American democracy.”Respond to this quote, citing specific provisions of the Constitution or problems you see with our current constitutional framework in your answer. Make sure your answer addresses the final sentence on the Supreme Court in some fashion.You are free to respond positively, negatively, or any stance in between to the speaker’s position.
At a conference panel devoted to the interpretation of the Constitution, one scholar (Scholar A) argues that original public meaning is the most valid method of constitutional interpretation. “Judges must use the interpretation that the public understood when the relevant text was ratified,” Scholar A says, “or else they are illegitimately deciding for themselves what powers the government has.” At the same panel, another scholar (Scholar B) rejects this statement. “Original meaning sounds like a good idea,” Scholar B says, “but in reality, it allows judges to pick their preferred meaning, and thus their preferred outcome. Living constitutionalism is more honest about what judging entails. Justices should be transparent about what values they hold and decide cases accordingly.” Respond to the arguments made by Scholars A and B. Your argument may support A, B, some combination of the two, or neither—make sure that your position is clear by the end of the first paragraph.