390
Defending the Constitution
more nor less than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises,
at their pleasure.’’
Likewise, the necessary and proper clause, wrote ‘‘Brutus,’’ ‘‘is a power
very comprehensive and . . . [may] be exercised in such manner as entirely
to abolish the State legislatures.’’ Taking the General Welfare, Tax, and
Necessary and Proper clauses together, concluded ‘‘Brutus,’’ ‘‘It is therefore evident that the legislature under this Constitution may pass any
law which they may think proper.’’
There was also criticism of the Commerce Clause, mostly from the
southern States. What is meant by the power to ‘‘regulate’’? What, precisely, is ‘‘commerce’’? The Constitution did not define these terms. Although vagueness and the possibility of an indefinite grant of power
were considerations, the southern Anti-Federalists were especially concerned that northern States might use their superior numbers in the
Congress to discriminate against southern commercial and economic
interests.
It was Patrick Henry who opposed the Constitution because it impeded majority rule. On the question of commerce, however, the AntiFederalists argued that majority rule was not enough: extraordinary or
‘‘super’’ majorities ought to be required for the enactment of commercial
laws, in order to protect the agricultural interests of the South. Richard
Henry Lee of Virginia thus complained that, ‘‘In this congressional legislature a bare majority of votes can enact commercial laws, so that the
representatives of seven Northern States, as they will have a majority, can
by law create the most oppressive monopoly upon the five Southern
States.’’ Opposition to the Constitution, it may thus be seen, stemmed not
only from republican considerations and a general distrust of centralized
power, but from other causes as well, including sectional differences and
jealousies among the States.
An Elected Monarch
Nor was Anti-Federalist dissatisfaction with Federal power under the
new Constitution limited to Congress. Patrick Henry alleged that the
Constitution ‘‘has an awful squinting; it squints towards monarchy. . . .
Your President may easily become king.’’ A New York Anti-Federalist,