Anti-FederalistsMost people think that the U.S. constitution was just ratified and there was no arguments over its passing. In fact there was almost enough opposition that it came very close to not being passed. It was the Hamiltonians vs. the Jeffersonians in almost all cases. Even before the United States Constitution was ratified there was debate over whether or not to have a strict interpretation or a loose one. There was also debate over a State’s right to nullify a law. As memories of Shay’s rebellion and the reality of the Whiskey rebellion came to the front the issue of undue force became an issue. One of the other major issues during this era was the debt and the national bank. Although the constitution was passed there was much debate over whether it should be a strict or loose interpretation. Hamilton’s federalists thought it should be loose and Jefferson’s democratic-republicans strict. If it was strict then the federal government would only have the powers specifically given to it because of the tenth amendment. Too justify it being loose the federalists used the elastic clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18) and then they could decide what was necessary and proper. Hamilton thought that the only way “to protect states sovereignty and at the same time have a national government would be to have a strong central authority”.The Kentucky and Virginia resolutions brought to the front a very important matter of concern, a state’s right to nullify a law. The federalists said that if a state could nullify a law then what did the laws mean. The democratic-republicans thought that if a law hurt a state unduly then it could be nullified. “Resolved,” the Kentucky Legislature declared in its opening paragraph, “that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” Supreme authority in America, it argu...
