Founding expectations: American politics and the debate over the Constitution

The founding era has much to tell us about American politics. This moment of creation offers us a glimpse at the reasons behind our governmental system, and offers us insights and predictions into how that government might work. The debate over ratification was not a debate over principles so much as a debate over practical politics, with strong disagreements on how a government under the proposed Constitution would work, and how such a constitution should be established in the first place. The founders on both sides of the debate were conscious of their place in history, and of the fact that they were embarking on unexplored territory, and their debates speak volumes about American government even to the present day. Using specific predictions made by Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the debate over ratification of the Constitution, I engage in an examination of contemporary American politics. The Federalists explained to us how the various branches of government would work together to effectively govern the nation while preventing tyranny; the Anti-Federalists told us how things would fall apart and why. Through a careful examination of the two houses of Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, I evaluate the state of each of these institutions in light of the predictions of the founders. I also discuss the condition of the national-state relationship using predictions about federalism and consolidation from the ratification debate. My goal is to shed light on contemporary American political institutions. Ultimately, the debate over ratification offers us the insights which we need not only to understand the American political system, but also to fix it where it is broken.