User:Kmcooper3pstcc/sandbox

Anti-Federalism They believed the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights.

MLA: Stroud, Jason. “Samuel Spencer, Anti-Federalist.” North Carolina's Revolutionary Founders, University of North Carolina Press, 2019, doi:10.5149/northcarolina/9781469651200.003.0010.

DOI: 10.5149/northcarolina/9781469651200.003.0010

Quote: "the recurrent theme of the antifederalists is fear: fear that the national government would usurp the rights of the people; fear that without a Bill of Rights all liberty would be destroyed; fear that the presidency and Senate would lead to an aristocracy."

phase 3 Anti-Federalism

Beck, George. “The Fourteenth Amendment as Related to Tribal Indians. Section I: Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof and Section II: Excluding Indians Not Taxed.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal, vol. 28, no. 4, University of California, American Indian Studies Center, 2004, pp. 37–68, doi:10.17953/aicr.28.4.m74ml521484qr2xj.

This peer-reviewed article provides a perspective about how the native Americans were excluded from many things in the constitution. Including rights to vote that they wouldn’t get until 1965 and exclusion from having citizenship even though that was their home. Rosen, Deborah A. American Indians and State Law Sovereignty, Race, and Citizenship,	1790-1880. University of Nebraska Press, 2007.

This book talks about how native Americans were treated in early America. It discusses how they were treated in the judicial system and how they were excluded from the rights the anti-federalists advocated for in the bill of rights.

Phase 4 fact 1 paragraph The precedent and model for the federal government’s direct rule of Indians was set by earlier state Indian policy. Well before federal Indian administration came to be marked by direct rule, the states had shifted to that approach wherever possible. The reason for the states’ preference for direct rule was clear: they lacked legal justification for indirect rule. Indirect rule presumes the continuation of separate indigenous communities and would require that the states recognize tribes and chiefs through whom state control could be exercised. Yet the very act of recognizing tribes and chiefs (and autonomous territory) would mean forfeiting state authority to the federal government, which claimed exclusive constitutional authority over Indian Territory and relations with Indian tribes. The states could justify their jurisdiction only to the extent that Indians were seen as members of the states. summary: this says that the states changed selected the way they wanted to govern to excluded indigenous people groups/leaders fact 2 paragraph Felix Cohen documents that such power does not extend to violations of the Constitution, such as the Bill of Rights. Chief Justice Fuller is cited as the authority in Stephens v. Chierokee Nation.124 Thus Congress's plenary authority cannot extend to "Indians not taxed" and Indians not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, as the 1866 drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment defined those phrases. The doctrine of plenary authority cannot coexist with the Fourteenth Amendment definition that tribal Indians are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The doctrine represents raw political power without a solid constitutional basis. It is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment. summary: this says that Indians were not allowed to be a part of the united states and that the 14th amendment did not apply to them.

Article sections As the Federalists moved to amend the Articles, eventually leading to the Constitutional Convention, they applied the term anti-federalist to their opposition. The term implied, correctly or not, both opposition to Congress and unpatriotic motives. The Anti-Federalists rejected the term, arguing that they were the true Federalists. In both their correspondence and their local groups, they tried to capture the term. For example, an unknown anti-federalist signed his public correspondence as "A Federal Farmer" and the New York committee opposing the Constitution was called the "Federal Republican Committee." However the Federalists carried the day and the name Anti-Federalist forever stuck.[2]

The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals; those that saw in the proposed government a new centralized, disguised "monarchic" power that would only replace the cast-off despotism of Great Britain;[3] and those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties. Some of the opposition believed that the central government under the Articles of Confederation was sufficient. Still others believed that while the national government under the Articles was too weak, the national government under the Constitution would be too strong. Another complaint of the Anti-Federalists was that the Constitution provided for a centralized rather than federal government (and in The Federalist Papers, James Madison admits that the new Constitution has the characteristics of both a centralized and federal form of the government) and that a truly federal form of government was a leaguing of states as under the Articles of Confederation.

The Native Americans were completely excluded from this new government and in some cases, states build how they were going to govern their people around being able to exclude Natives. Even though the anti-federalists were concerned with add a bill of rights they did not care about the natives whose land they had taken. in many cases even later in history when the 14th amendment was passed the Natives were still denied citizenship.