Throughout history, many scholars have argued that because the Anti-Federalists lost the debate over the Constitution, they should be at best ignored, and at worst denigrated. What possible reason could we have to consult the arguments of the enemies of our revered Constitution? What—if any—role could they possibly play in modern constitutional interpretation?

While it is true that the Anti-Federalists will go down in history as dissenters from the Constitution, the unique nature of our ratification process should spare them from the dustbin of history. Because our Constitution is a result of a dialogue, understanding the arguments on both sides is an important prerequisite to understanding the resulting text.

In particular, when searching for the original meaning of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists play an important role: their skepticism led to changes prior to ratification. Because this skepticism influenced the resulting Constitution, the Anti-Federalists remain a key source for originalist inquiries. This paper will (1) consider the historical resurgence of the Anti-Federalists, (2) propose their proper role in modern constitutional jurisprudence, and (3) study the Supreme Court’s examination of Anti-Federalist influence on the Constitution when making originalist inquiries.

Keep Reading Return of the Skeptics