Question

After listing the numerous powers granted to Congress by the Constitution the author says-

My object is to consider that undefined, unbounded and immense power which is comprised in the following clause: “And to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States; or in any department or offices thereof.” Under such a clause as this, can anything be said to be reserved and kept back from Congress? ...

In giving such immense, such unlimited powers, was there no necessity of a Bill of Rights, to secure to the people their liberties? Is it not evident that we are left wholly dependent on the wisdom and virtue of the men who shall from time to time be the members of Congress? And who shall be able to say seven years hence, the members of Congress will be wise and good men, or of the contrary character?

1. What words does the author use to describe the powers in the Constitution?


2. Does the Necessary and Proper Clause quoted in this excerpt comfort or upset the author? Why?


3. Does the author believe a Bill of Rights is necessary? Why?


4. Does the author trust the future members of Congress? Why does this matter?


5. Is this author a Federalist or Anti-Federalist? How can you tell? (Use at least two pieces of the text to help you answer this. The title doesn’t count)

Answer 1

The author, who is concerned about the expansive powers granted to Congress through the 'necessary and proper clause,' seems to be an Anti-Federalist advocating for a Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties. The language used suggests a fear of relying on the future members of Congress to use their powers wisely.

Step-by-step explanation:

The author of the question's passage expresses concern regarding the breadth of powers granted to Congress in the Constitution, specifically citing the 'necessary and proper clause'. Words used to describe these powers include "undefined, unbounded and immense", indicating the author's perception that the clause allows for potentially limitless authority. This observation clearly upsets the author, who seems to argue that such a broad and vaguely defined power structure could endanger individual liberties, hence the suggestion that a Bill of Rights is needed to protect these freedoms.

The author questions the dependability of future members of Congress and worries that citizens will be "wholly dependent on the wisdom and virtue" of these individuals. This concern about Congress’s potential to misuse such broad powers is a critical reason why the author believes a Bill of Rights is necessary. It serves as a safeguard against potential abuses of power and ensures the protection of individual liberties.

From their skepticism about the central government's expanded powers and support for a Bill of Rights, we can infer that the author aligns with Anti-Federalist viewpoints. Anti-Federalists were wary of a strong central government and advocated for the protection of states' rights and individual freedoms. In contrast, Federalists supported a stronger national government and argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the federal government could only operate within the powers granted by the Constitution.