Brutus 1 | AP Gov | NEW!

Summary

This video breaks down Brutus No. 1, a key Anti-Federalist paper opposing the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The creator highlights the main arguments, such as the dangers of a strong central government, the erosion of states' rights, and the potential for federal tyranny through the necessary and proper clause, supremacy clause, and taxation power. Brutus warns that a large republic could lead to loss of individual freedoms and ineffective representation. The video concludes with suggestions on using Brutus No. 1 to support arguments for states' rights, individual liberty, and participatory democracy.

Takeaways

• 📜 Brutus No. 1 is a key anti-federalist document arguing against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, emphasizing states' rights and opposing a stronger central government.
• ⚖️ Brutus warns that once power is given to the federal government, it cannot be taken back without force, highlighting the permanence of ratification.
• 📜 The necessary and proper clause and the supremacy clause are seen by Brutus as granting the federal government absolute and uncontrollable power over the states.
• 💰 Brutus criticizes the Constitution for granting Congress the power to tax, arguing it transforms the U.S. from a confederation of states into a single large republic, threatening state sovereignty.
• 🛡️ The power to create standing armies during peacetime is viewed as a direct threat to liberty, reinforcing Brutus’s fears of a coercive federal government.
• ⚖️ Brutus predicts that the Supreme Court will dominate state courts, leveraging the supremacy clause to strike down state laws.
• 🏛️ The document argues that large republics historically lead to tyranny, citing the fall of the Greek and Roman republics when they expanded beyond their small sizes.
• 👥 Brutus advocates for thirteen small republics over one large republic, emphasizing that a government works best when people are directly involved in policymaking.
• 🗳️ Brutus argues that in a large republic, representation fails because representatives either lack connection to their constituents or Congress becomes too large to function effectively.
• 🌀 Brutus claims the U.S. is too diverse to be a single republic, as differing interests would lead to conflict and prevent the promotion of the public good.

Q & A

What is Brutus Number One primarily arguing against?

Brutus Number One argues against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, opposing a stronger central government and advocating for states' rights.

Why does Brutus emphasize the permanence of the decision to ratify the Constitution?

Brutus warns that once the people give power to the federal government through ratification, they will not be able to take it back without force, making the decision irreversible.

What clauses of the Constitution does Brutus specifically criticize?

Brutus criticizes the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause, arguing that they would give the federal government 'absolute and uncontrollable power.'

How does Brutus interpret the Necessary and Proper Clause?

Brutus believes the Necessary and Proper Clause is too general and could be used to justify passing almost any law, greatly expanding Congress' power beyond its enumerated powers.

What is Brutus' concern with the Supremacy Clause?

Brutus fears that the Supremacy Clause will make federal laws superior to state laws, eventually leading to the annihilation of state powers and reducing the states to irrelevance.

Why does Brutus oppose the power of Congress to levy taxes?

Brutus argues that taxation is the most important power a government can have, and giving Congress the power to tax would enable tyranny, as the federal government could oppress the people through taxation.

What is Brutus’ view on standing armies during peacetime?

Brutus warns that the Constitution's allowance of standing armies in peacetime threatens liberty, as a permanent army would enable the federal government to enforce coercive powers.

How does Brutus view human nature in relation to government power?

Brutus argues that individuals in power will naturally seek to increase their power, leading the federal government to dominate the states and centralize control.

Why does Brutus believe a large republic would not work in the United States?

Brutus argues that history shows large republics tend to devolve into tyrannies. He believes the U.S. is too large and diverse to function as a single republic, as differing interests would lead to constant conflict.

How can students use Brutus Number One in an argument essay?

Students can use Brutus Number One to argue for states' rights, individual liberties, and participatory democracy, as it supports limiting federal power and maximizing direct influence of the people over policy.

Outlines

00:00

📜 Introduction to Brutus No. 1

The video introduces the anti-federalist paper Brutus No. 1, emphasizing its relevance for understanding the opposition to the U.S. Constitution. Brutus warned about the irreversible power the Constitution would grant to the federal government, arguing that once the people relinquish power, they will not be able to reclaim it except by force. This sets the tone for the paper's central argument: the potential danger of a too-powerful central government.

05:01

⚖️ Federal vs. State Power

Brutus No. 1 questions whether the U.S. should consist of sovereign states under a confederacy or become a single republic under federal control. The author expresses concern that the 'necessary and proper' clause and the 'supremacy' clause would grant the federal government uncontrollable power. The fear is that these clauses will lead to the erosion of state sovereignty.

📜 The Necessary and Proper Clause

The script explores the 'necessary and proper' clause in Article 1, Section 8, which Brutus argues could justify almost any law Congress wants to pass, even beyond enumerated powers. While the clause has indeed expanded congressional power, the video suggests that Brutus' concern might have been somewhat exaggerated.

🏛️ Supremacy Clause and State Power

Brutus criticizes the Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal laws are the supreme law of the land, overriding state laws. The author fears that the remaining powers left to the states will soon become irrelevant, as Congress could eventually remove any state interference to exert full control.

💸 Federal Taxation Concerns

The script discusses Brutus’ concern over the federal government’s power to tax, which he believes will end the confederation structure and move towards a centralized republic. Brutus warns that this power could lead to oppression and tyranny, aligning with his broader fear of federal overreach.

🛡️ Standing Armies and Liberty

Brutus warns that the Constitution allows for the creation of standing armies in peacetime, which he views as a threat to liberty. His argument is that a government with a permanent military could easily coerce and dominate the people, leading to the erosion of freedoms.

🔍 Human Nature and Federal Power

Brutus makes an observation about human nature, arguing that people in power will naturally seek to expand their authority. This sentiment is shared by James Madison in the Federalist Papers, though Brutus uses it to argue that federal power will dominate and undermine state authority.

⚖️ Supreme Court Fears

Brutus predicts that the Supreme Court will dominate state courts, further weakening state power. His fear is that the federal judiciary will use the Supremacy Clause to override state laws, concentrating even more power at the federal level.

🏛️ Republic Size Debate

Brutus argues that history shows large republics inevitably lead to tyranny. He cites the examples of the Greek and Roman republics, which maintained freedom when they were small but lost it as they expanded into empires. He believes smaller republics are better for maintaining liberty.

🏛️ Participatory Democracy

Brutus advocates for participatory democracy, suggesting that a pure democracy could only succeed in small areas, like cities. He prefers that political decisions be made as locally as possible, with people having direct involvement in policy-making.

🤔 Representation in a Large Republic

The script explains Brutus’ concerns with representation in a large republic. He argues that having too many representatives would lead to a dysfunctional legislature, while too few would distance representatives from their constituents, making true representation impossible. This dilemma undermines the consent of the governed.

🌍 Diversity and Governance

Brutus contends that the U.S. is too diverse to function as a single republic. He argues that Congress will be plagued by clashing opinions due to the country's varied population, preventing the government from promoting the public good effectively.

⚖️ Summary of Brutus No. 1 Arguments

The video concludes by summarizing key arguments from Brutus No. 1, including its utility for defending states’ rights, individual liberty, and participatory democracy in essays. Brutus’ warnings against a tyrannical central government and his advocacy for local governance are emphasized.

📚 Promotion and Closing Remarks

The video closes with a reminder to watch upcoming videos on the Federalist Papers and promotes the Ultimate Review Packet, which offers practice tests, study guides, and unit-specific content for students preparing for exams.

Keywords

💡Anti-Federalists

Anti-Federalists were a group who opposed the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, believing it gave too much power to a centralized federal government. In the video, Brutus represents the Anti-Federalist viewpoint, arguing that the Constitution would erode states' rights and lead to tyranny. This perspective is key to understanding the paper's overall message.

💡Brutus Number One

Brutus Number One is one of the most famous Anti-Federalist papers, written to argue against the ratification of the Constitution. It is central to the video, serving as a primary example of the Anti-Federalist position on states’ rights, federal power, and the potential for tyranny under a centralized government.

💡States' Rights

States' rights refer to the political powers reserved for U.S. state governments rather than the federal government. Brutus feared that the new Constitution, especially through the necessary and proper clause and the supremacy clause, would undermine these rights, making states powerless. The video emphasizes this as a critical argument made by Brutus.

💡Necessary and Proper Clause

The Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the power to make laws deemed necessary and proper for executing its enumerated powers. Brutus criticizes this clause in the video, arguing that it could allow Congress to expand its powers indefinitely, leading to uncontrollable federal authority over the states.

💡Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution and federal laws take precedence over state laws. Brutus sees this as a threat to states' autonomy, predicting that federal law will always dominate state law, effectively nullifying the relevance of state governments. This concern is highlighted in the video's discussion of federal versus state power.

💡Federalism

Federalism is the system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units (states). The video explains that Brutus opposed the type of federalism proposed in the Constitution because it shifted too much power to the federal government, thus undermining the autonomy of the states.

💡Taxation

Taxation is highlighted as one of the most significant powers granted to Congress under the Constitution. Brutus argues in the video that taxation is not only necessary for protection and security but could also be used as a tool of oppression by a tyrannical federal government, especially given the lack of sufficient state power to counter it.

💡Standing Army

Brutus expresses deep concern about the federal government’s power to maintain a standing army during peacetime, fearing it would enable the government to enforce tyrannical policies. The video underscores this fear, noting that Brutus saw a constant military presence as incompatible with true liberty.

💡Large Republic vs. Small Republics

Brutus argues in favor of maintaining thirteen small republics rather than creating a single large one, as proposed in the Constitution. He believes a large republic is impractical for maintaining freedom, citing historical examples like the Roman and Greek republics that lost liberty when they expanded into empires. The video explains how Brutus believes smaller republics allow for better representation and governance.

💡Participatory Democracy

Participatory democracy is a form of democracy where citizens have direct involvement in decision-making processes. Brutus is portrayed in the video as an advocate for this model, as he argues that smaller governments, like state governments, allow for more direct involvement from the people, which in turn preserves liberty.

Highlights

Brutus number one is the preeminent anti-federalist paper, opposing ratification of the Constitution.

Brutus emphasizes that if the federal government is established, the people won’t be able to take that power back without force.

The author argues whether the U.S. should remain thirteen sovereign states or become a large republic under federal control.

Brutus warns that the necessary and proper clause and supremacy clause will give the federal government 'absolute and uncontrollable power.'

The necessary and proper clause expands Congress' powers beyond the enumerated powers, but it must still relate to these powers.

The supremacy clause gives federal law superiority over state law, causing anti-federalist fears of state powers being undermined.

Brutus predicts that the federal government will eventually annihilate state powers, reducing the country to one single government.

He argues that Congress' power to tax will lead to tyranny, as taxation is a powerful tool of oppression in a bad government.

The Constitution allowing for standing armies in peacetime is seen by Brutus as a threat to liberty and freedom.

Brutus argues that human nature inclines men to increase their power, leading the federal government to dominate the states.

He warns that the Supreme Court will dominate state courts and strike down state laws through the supremacy clause.

Brutus believes that history shows large republics tend to devolve into tyranny, using the examples of Greece and Rome.

He supports the idea of smaller republics where people can be more directly involved in policymaking, advocating for participatory democracy.

Brutus sees representation in a large republic as flawed, as representatives either won’t know the sentiments of the people or will be too few to truly represent them.

He argues that the U.S. is too diverse for a single republic, as clashing opinions in Congress will prevent the promotion of the public good.

Transcripts

Hey everybody, welcome back! I read Brutus number  one so you don’t have to. Smash that like button  

and let’s find out why anti-federalists  were so opposed to the Constitution!

Alright, so Brutus number one is the  preeminent anti-federalist paper for AP gov,  

written to oppose ratification of the  Constitution. This paper will be super  

useful for the argument essay since  it’s the only document that argues for  

states’ rights and against a stronger central  government, so let’s get into the specifics.

Right from the jump Brutus emphasizes the  permanence of the decision if the people vote  

for ratification, warning that if this  new federal government is established,  

the people won’t be able to take that power  back. It says that “when the people once  

part with power, they can seldom or  never resume it again but by force.”

In other words, if you regret this decision  in a few years you won’t be able to change  

your mind—you’ll have to fight if you  want out. And for not the last time,  

this warning by Brutus seems prophetic.

To the author, the real decision is do we want  thirteen sovereign states that come together as  

a confederacy or should it be one large republic  under federal control? Because whether the framers  

intended it or not, that’s what’s gonna  happen if this Constitution gets adopted.

He claims that the necessary and proper  clause and the supremacy clause will  

give the federal government “absolute and  uncontrollable power.” That’s a dramatic  

claim, so let’s unpack it, starting  with the necessary proper clause.

Article 1 section 8 lists the enumerated powers  of Congress, but then the last line is called  

the necessary and proper clause, which says,  “Congress shall have power to make all laws  

which shall be necessary and proper for carrying  into execution the foregoing powers.” Brutus  

says that these powers are “very general” and  may “justify the passing of almost any law.”

He kinda has a point here. This clause  has definitely expanded the powers of  

Congress to legislate beyond just their  enumerated powers, that’s true. However,  

Congress can’t pass literally any law based  on this clause, rather it has to be related  

to their enumerated powers. So, good intuition,  but maybe not quite as dramatic as he suggested.

In article four, the supremacy clause  declares that, “this Constitution and  

federal laws shall be the supreme law  of the land.” It’s pretty easy to see  

why an anti-federalist wouldn’t like  this one. Due to the supremacy clause,  

whenever state and federal laws  conflict, the federal policy is superior.

As a result of these two clauses, he predicts that  even though some small degree of power is left to  

the states, those powers reserved to the states  will very soon be annihilated. This will reduce  

the country to one single government, the  new federal government, leaving the states  

irrelevant. His argument is very simple:  if Congress can do it, they will do it.

He basically says that the few remaining  powers left to the states will become annoying  

to the federal government, so Congress will  naturally be inclined to remove that annoyance,  

meaning the states, and get them  out of the way once and for all.

The next thing that draws his ire is the  Constitution giving Congress the power to lay  

and collect taxes. He says this is the end of the  U.S. being a confederation like the Articles of  

Confederation set up, and rather it embraces the  idea of a single large republic. His preference  

is for states to maintain their sovereignty,  so this is another unacceptable provision.

But it’s not just that. Taxation is the  most important power that can be granted  

to a government, and while it’s the means of  protection, security, and defense in a government,  

it is the great engine of oppression and  tyranny in a bad government. And when you  

remember that he says that Congress is going  to have absolute and uncontrollable power,  

it’s clear that he’s warning that this  power to tax will be used tyrannically.

If the power to tax weren’t bad enough,  the Constitution allows for the creation  

of standing armies during peacetime and Brutus  says that this will lead to nothing less than  

the destruction liberty. I mean dude is really  against this Constitution. To his point, how  

free can people really be if the government always  has an army that can enforce its coercive powers?

We also get an observation from Brutus on  human nature. It says that every man who’s  

given some power will be disposed to increase  that power. Interestingly, James Madison in  

Federalist 10 and 51 makes essentially that same  observation but draws a different conclusion than  

Brutus who uses that inclination to argue  that the federal will dominate the states.

Brutus also warns that the Supreme Court  will end up dominating and swallowing up  

the power of state courts. This touches  on the anti-federalist fear of a federal  

Supreme Court that would empower itself to strike  down state laws because of the supremacy clause.

The rest of Brutus number one is an exploration  of whether it’s better to have a single large  

republic or thirteen small republics. He  starts by showing that history is on his side,  

saying that history furnishes no example of  a free republic anything like the size of the  

United States. He points out the Greek and Roman  republics were both republics as long as they were  

small, but when they became large empires, guess  what: goodbye free republics and hello tyranny.

Not surprisingly, our states’ rights advocate  argues that thirteen small republics would be  

better. Remember, he wants the people  to be as free as possible. He briefly  

describes a pure democracy, and while he doesn’t  explicitly endorse a democracy over a republic,  

it’s clear that the author is sympathetic to  idea of democracy, though he points out that  

a pure democracy could only be successful  in a small area, such as a single city.

Clearly, as many political things as can be done  at this local level by the people themselves,  

the better. Use Brutus to argue for participatory  

democracy where people are as directly  involved in policymaking as possible.

The problem with representation in a large  republic is that you have two options,  

neither of which are desirable. You could have  a very large number of representatives so that  

each representative knows the sentiments  of the people. But the problem is that  

then you’d have such a large legislature  that it wouldn’t be able to function.

Or you reduce the number of representatives  so that Congress can function, but then the  

representatives will be representing so many  people that they won’t really know what their  

constituents want and therefore  laws won’t really be derived from  

the consent of the people. In which case,  you really don’t have a republic anymore.

Brutus also argues that the U.S. is too  diverse to be a single republic. The people  

are too different from each other so Congress  will be full of clashing opinions and fighting  

and it will prevent them from promoting the  public good. The claim is that a republic  

needs to contain people who are similar to  one another, otherwise it’ll never work.

Alright, so that’s Brutus number  one! I’d like to briefly review  

a few good ways to use Brutus on the  argument essay. The most obvious way  

is to argue for states’ rights in any  topic about state versus federal power.

You can also use Brutus to support  individual rights. He warned extensively  

about a tyrannical government because  his biggest concern was the liberty of  

the people. And you can use Brutus to  support participatory democracy since  

he wanted people to have as much  influence over policy as possible.

And that’s it for this one. Be sure watch  my videos on each of the Federalist papers,  

and until next time, this has  been a LaMoney production.

Thanks again for watching, and if you want  to do your best in class and on the exam,  

consider checking out the Ultimate Review  Packet. Three full length practice tests,  

great study guides, tons of practice  for each unit, and exclusive FRQ help  

and practice. Preview unit one for free.  And I will see you in the next video.