John Dewitt And Brrutus Arguments On The Nature Of The Central Government

Is unlimited power in a central government dangerous? Anti-federalists such as John Dewitt and Brutus certainly think so. Publius, on the other hand, argues that an unconstrained government is absolutely vital. He makes his argument through a series of iterations while defending the Anti-federalists’ worries of usurpation of power, annihilation of state governments, and ambiguities in the Constitution. While the Anti-federalists and Federalists disagree on the nature of power in the central government. They do agree on where the national government’s powers originate—the people.

The Federalists claim that the powers of the central government should be interminable. Publius states that the “means ought to be proportioned to the end,” wherein the government should have all the powers necessary to accomplish what it is charged to do (Feds. 1490). The people delegate power to the

He urges to “investigate the nature, and the extent of the powers intended to be granted by this constitution to the rulers” (Anti-feds. 294). Brutus claims that there are “no bounds” set and that in and of itself is concerning. In response, Publius rebuts that the problem is not limiting the power of government, but limiting the range which the power of government extends. Publius states that we should “discriminate the objects” while still allowing each department the most “ample authority” to commit its charge (Feds. 151). In other words, power should be unlimited to limited ends. These unrestrained powers of the government are “necessary means of attaining a necessary end” (Feds. 251). On the other hand, Brutus questions “what are the ideas included in the terms” and “are these terms definite?” (Anti-feds. 299). Brutus poses questions that probe at what the limited ends that Publius mentions are supposed to