The disagreement and competing ideas separating the Federalists and Anti-Federalists stem from their conflicting views regarding the genre of a Constitution. The debate between these rival factions focuses on whether the Constitution should include a Bill of Rights. The Federalists were opposed to the idea of protecting individual rights by expressly stating such rights in the Constitution. These individuals were not attempting to grant the government more power or limit individual rights.
Rather, “The Truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A Bill of Rights ” (Federalist 84). Thus, the addition of a Bill of Rights could lead to the abridgment rights explicitly included since Federalists see the Constitution as a formal device which defines the only powers granted to the government, and the people retain all power not delegated to their government.
Anti-Federalists possess a very different view. They do not see the Constitution as a protector of individual rights in itself. Thus, where Federalists would argue that the Constitution itself protects the individual and the inclusion of a Bill of Rights would allow the government to ignore rights not expressed. The Anti-Federalists believe that without certain rights clearly expressed in the Constitution, inevitably the government will not recognize the implied rights not written on parchment.
These differing schools of thought concerning the necessity of a Bill of Rights are the result of two distinct approaches towards reading a Constitution. Federalists read the Constitution as an agreement between equals; therefore, “The people surrender nothing and as they retain everything they have no need of particular reservations” (Federalist 84).
The Anti-Federalists desire for the inclusion of a Bill of Rights is derived from their reading of the Constitution as the relinquishing of powers, not expressly reserved, from the people to the government. Two distinct genres emerge. One leads the reader to see the Constitution as the protector of individual rights since the people have the power, give up nothing, and retain everything. The other genre leads the reader to conclude certain rights must be protected through expressed inclusion in the Constitution since, “ All the powers of government originally reside in the body of the people, and that when they appoint certain persons to administer the government, they delegate all the powers of government not expressly reserved” (Agrippa 149).
