tennyson wrote:

While we take the Constitution to be a uniform notion of how our government should work, a quick look at the times reflect a VERY diverse opinion on the Constitution itself some of which still exists.

Nobody back then would have said that the Constitution just established a "notion" for government operation. 

That it was understood by all to be the ironclad framework that detailed the powers of the federal government and it's relationship with the states, is where the resistance to it was grounded.  It was understood by all that the Constitution cemented the doctrine of federal supremacy and preemptive powers . . . Powers that once surrendered, can not be claimed by the states or the people (as a right).  That's where the fear and disagreements emanated.

tennyson wrote:

The piece below is both a good read for its historical perspective and even as I alluded to some glimmers of the debates that still exist.

https://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/federalists-versus-antifederalists-/

As divisive as the debate was over adding a bill of rights that article skims the surface and really doesn't address the actual philosophical disagreements between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.  There certainly was no disagreement over what rights are or their origin, the primary disagreement was over how best to protect them.

I would say that philosophically I align with the Federalist arguments and their fears and warnings about adding a bill of rights (see Federalist 84) have certainly been realized. 

We see now that creating a list of rights makes some think that "the list" is the full account of all the rights of the citizen, and everything else falls into government's hands . . .  We see now that it is absurd and dangerous to declare that things shall not be done when no power was granted to do said thing, because no matter how the provision is worded, those intent on usurpation will twist and misrepresent / misinterpret the words to invent powers.

These primary Federalist arguments against adding a bill of rights were the impetus for the 9th and 10th Amendments.  I consider those two Amendments to be consolation prizes for the Federalists for acquiescing to the proposed amendments.

Saying that though, I'm still glad the Anti-Federalists "won" the debate and we have a Bill of Rights.

Overall, as far as drawing comparisons to today's disagreements on the Constitution, I'm having a hard time comparing let alone equating today's conflicts of interpretation and understanding with any that occurred in the late 1700's. 

I believe that many today who are befuddled about what the Constitution means, need to be confused because the Constitution's actual action frustrates and negates what they want to do.  Far from being just simple disagreements, what we have today are blatant misrepresentations of what the Constitution is and what it does . . .  To the point where the position shifts to just saying the Constitution has no application in today's USA and we should just ignore it.

.

Last edited by Jeerleader (3/07/2016 8:54 pm)

Actually right from the start there were wide disagreements about the Constitution. There were those such as Jefferson who were strict constructionists vs Hamilton who was a broad constructionist. It was the first major political dispute and lives to this very day.