Brutus questioned whether the Constitution would lead to the erosion of rights of Americans because he felt a stronger government threatened the rights of states and individuals. Those who opposed immediate ratification of the Constitution were called anti-Federalist.

Brutus felt that the Congress would hold too much power over the states. He felt that once the people elected to Congress had this power it would be difficult to take it away saying “Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority.” He felt that independent states could manage their own local affairs with smaller separate governments.

He wrote of comparisons to the way England ran their government. He felt that the legislation power was too great because the Supreme Court could interpret the Constitution anyway they wanted to. He felt “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, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution”.

He did not believe we should have a standing army in peacetime. He felt it was dangerous to public liberties. He said “It might be here shewn, that the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their controul over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty”. Armies in peace was a recipe for tyranny in the near future.

 

Brutus wrote “in a republic of the extent of this continent, the people in general would be acquainted with very few of their rulers: the people at large would know little of their proceedings, and it would be extremely difficult to change them.” Brutus felt the United States was so large it would be virtually impossible for people to know their rulers personally. He felt this would make the rulers less likely to represent the needs of the individual populations. The Senators with six-year terms would be spending too much time away from their constituents and they would lose touch with the interests of the places they are supposed to represent.

His largest argument was that the United States was simply too large to be governed by one body. “The question then will be, whether a government thus constituted, and founded on such principles, is practicable, and can be exercised over the whole United States, reduced into one state?” The United States is filled with such diverse people how could they possibly be united under one government without sacrificing their personal ideas of what liberty should be. He felt that the interests of the South were much different than the interests of the Northeast and that one government could not possibly adequately represent both interests. He felt that a free Republic cannot exist with the population and geographical size of the United States. He felt that people could not possibly know who they are electing to office personally. People should understand who is representing them and know their views. He used the example of Greek and Roman empires that became too large. As their territory grew individual rights dwindled saying that “History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States”.

Brutus was an anti-Federalist he believed that the central government under the Articles of Confederation was sufficient. Under the Articles of Confederation the states would still work together but there was no larger government in charge of everything that would overshadow the hard work that they have done. He felt a national government under the Constitution would be too strong and too powerful.