Brutus no.1, EXPLAINED [AP Government Foundational Documents]
Summary
TLDRIn this educational video, the focus is on 'Brutus No. 1,' a key document in the anti-federalist debate against the U.S. Constitution. The video contrasts 'Brutus' with 'Federalist 10,' highlighting the former's opposition to a powerful central government. 'Brutus' argues for a confederated government, fearing that the Constitution's 'necessary and proper' clause and supremacy clause would undermine state powers. The video discusses concerns about taxation, court authority, and the impracticality of representative democracy in a large republic, quoting Baron de Montesquieu to emphasize these points.
Takeaways
- 📜 The video discusses 'Brutus No. 1', an Anti-Federalist paper arguing against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
- 🗳️ 'Brutus' is a pseudonym used by the author, who is critical of the centralization of power proposed by the Constitution.
- 🏛️ The Federalist Papers supported the Constitution, while Anti-Federalist papers like 'Brutus No. 1' opposed it, with both published in New York newspapers.
- 🌐 'Brutus' argues for a confederated government, where states retain significant power, as opposed to a strong central government.
- 📖 The 'Necessary and Proper Clause' and the 'Supremacy Clause' are highlighted as problematic by 'Brutus', fearing they would undermine state autonomy.
- 💵 'Brutus' is particularly concerned about the federal government's power to tax, which he believes would lead to the withering of state governments.
- 🏢 'Brutus' also criticizes the federal court system, suggesting it would render state courts obsolete and further centralize power.
- 🌳 The size of the nation is a point of contention for 'Brutus', who questions the feasibility of a republic governing such a vast territory effectively.
- 🗳️ 'Brutus' quotes Baron de Montesquieu to argue that a republic cannot sustain itself over a large territory due to representation challenges.
- 🔗 The video aims to help students understand foundational documents for AP Government classes and encourages engagement through subscriptions.
Q & A
What is the main topic of the video?
-The main topic of the video is the discussion of 'Brutus No. 1', an anti-federalist paper, and its arguments against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
Who is Brutus in the context of the video?
-In the context of the video, 'Brutus' refers to the pseudonym used by the author of 'Brutus No. 1', one of the Anti-Federalist Papers, which argued against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
What is the key debate between 'Federalist 10' and 'Brutus No. 1'?
-The key debate is whether the United States should adopt a republican-style government with a strong central authority as proposed in 'Federalist 10', or maintain a confederated government with more power distributed to the states as argued in 'Brutus No. 1'.
What is the 'necessary and proper clause' mentioned in the video?
-The 'necessary and proper clause' refers to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which allows Congress to make any laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers.
What does the supremacy clause in Article 6 of the Constitution state?
-The supremacy clause in Article 6 of the Constitution states that federal laws have greater authority than state laws, meaning that when there is a conflict, federal law prevails.
Why does Brutus argue that state governments will lose power under the new Constitution?
-Brutus argues that state governments will lose power because the 'necessary and proper clause' and the supremacy clause would allow the federal government to override state laws and absorb state powers, leading to the eventual demise of state governments.
What is Brutus's main concern regarding the collection of taxes?
-Brutus's main concern is that if the federal government collects taxes, state governments will struggle to raise sufficient funds to support themselves, leading to their decline and the concentration of power in the federal government.
How does Brutus view the role of federal courts in relation to state courts?
-Brutus is concerned that federal courts, having supremacy over state courts, would render state courts obsolete and unnecessary, further centralizing power and undermining state authority.
What does Brutus argue about the size of the nation and its impact on a republican form of government?
-Brutus argues that a large nation, both in terms of territory and population, cannot effectively maintain a republican form of government because it is impractical for representatives to understand and address the needs of such a diverse and widespread population.
Who does Brutus quote to support his argument about the size of a republic?
-Brutus quotes Baron de Montesquieu, who in 'The Spirit of the Laws' stated that a republic should have only a small territory to be sustainable.
What is the main point Brutus makes about the relationship between the people and their rulers in a large republic?
-Brutus argues that in a large republic, the people will be less acquainted with their rulers, making it difficult for them to hold them accountable and to replace them if they misbehave, thus undermining the trust and confidence necessary in a free republic.
Outlines
🗽 Introduction to Brutus' Argument Against the Constitution
The paragraph introduces the viewer to 'Brutus Number One', part of the Anti-Federalist Papers, which opposed the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. It contrasts with 'Federalist 10', which supported the Constitution. 'Brutus' is noted for its critique of a powerful central government, drawing parallels to the Roman general who opposed Julius Caesar's centralization of power. The main concern of 'Brutus' is the potential for state governments to lose power due to the 'necessary and proper clause' and the 'supremacy clause' in the Constitution, which could lead to the central government overshadowing state laws and authority.
💡 Brutus' Concerns Over Centralized Power and Representation
This paragraph delves into Brutus' specific concerns regarding the centralization of power in the proposed Constitution. Brutus argues that the federal government's authority to tax and the supremacy of federal law over state law would diminish state governments. He also discusses the impracticality of representative democracy in a large and populous nation, suggesting that it would be difficult for representatives to understand and address the needs of all their constituents. Brutus contends that the people's confidence in rulers in a free republic is based on familiarity, responsibility, and the power to remove them, which would be compromised in a vast republic.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Federalist Papers
💡Anti-Federalist Papers
💡Brutus No. 1
💡Necessary and Proper Clause
💡Supremacy Clause
💡Confederated Government
💡Taxation
💡Federal Courts
💡Baron de Montesquieu
💡Republican Form of Government
Highlights
Introduction to Brutus No. 1, an anti-federalist paper arguing against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
Comparison with Federalist 10, which supports the ratification of the Constitution.
The debate between a republican-style government and a confederated government for the United States.
Definition of a confederated government as it was under the Articles of Confederation.
Brutus' argument that a confederacy of state governments is better than a powerful central government.
Critique of the 'necessary and proper clause' in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Concerns about the supremacy clause in Article 6, which gives federal laws precedence over state laws.
Argument that state governments will lose power due to the central authority's ability to pass any law.
Example of how state power could diminish through the federal government's taxation authority.
The impact of federal taxation on the ability of state governments to raise funds.
The potential obsolescence of state courts due to the supremacy of federal courts.
Discussion on the impracticality of a large republic form of government in a vast territory like the United States.
Quotation from Baron de Montesquieu on the ideal size of a republic.
The challenge of representative democracy in a large and populous nation.
Brutus' conclusion that a large republic cannot maintain the trust and accountability necessary for a free republic.
Call to action for viewers to subscribe and support the creation of more educational content.
Transcripts
hey there and welcome back to heimlich's
history and further welcome to another
video in our foundational documents
series for ap government in this video
we're going to be considering brutus
number one so if you're ready to get
them brain cows milk participatory style
well then let's get to it so in the last
video i talked about federalist 10 and
the ap overlords are concerned that you
understand the debate between that
document and brutus one now by way of
reminder the federalist papers argued
for the ratification of the constitution
while the anti-federalist papers of
which brutus number one is the first
argued against ratification of the
constitution and both sets of essays
were published in new york newspapers to
try to persuade the public one way or
the other now while federalist 10 argued
for the merits of a republican-style
government for a large nation like the
united states brutus is going to take an
anti-constitutional dump all over that
argument and let's see how he does it
and by the way there is a debate who
actually wrote brutus one so i'm just
gonna call him brutus and if it helps
you remember what this document is all
about just remember that brutus was one
of the guys who assassinated julius
caesar who happened to lead a very
powerful centralized government okay so
let's get into the document the main
question brutus is attempting to answer
is this the first question that presents
itself on the subject is whether a
confederated government be the best for
the united states or not now a
confederated government in case you
don't know is the kind of government
that the united states had under the
articles of confederation the states had
all the power and the central government
had very little in fact you might say
that there were 13 governments in the
early united states one for each state
that were loosely tied together by a
weak central authority okay so
continuing or in other words whether the
13 united states should be reduced to
one great republic governed by one
legislature and under the direction of
one executive and judicial or whether
they should continue 13 confederated
republics under the direction and
control of a supreme federal head for
certain defined national purposes only
okay so the question is this which is
better for this new freedom-loving
nation a confederacy of state
governments or a powerful central
government and brutus argued in no
uncertain terms that a confederacy is
better than the republic that the
constitution would establish there are
several arguments brutus makes in
support of this claim chief among them
is that oh so odious necessary and
proper clause in article 1 section 8 of
the constitution which says that
congress can make any law which shall be
necessary and proper to the execution of
its enumerated powers and causing a
further stench in brutus's nostrils is
the supremacy clause in article 6 which
says that federal laws have greater
authority than state laws so what's the
problem with that well brutus help me
out it appears from these articles that
there is no need of any intervention of
the state governments between the
congress and the people to execute any
one power vested in the general
government and that the constitution and
laws of every state are nullified and
declared void so far as they shall be
inconsistent with this constitution and
so what happens in that case all power
that is reserved for the individual
states must very soon be annihilated
except so far as they are barely
necessary for the organization of the
general government so brutus main
concern is that by creating a central
authority who can by the necessary and
proper clause pass any law imaginable
and by which the supremacy clause can
crush any state law under its big hairy
feet that state governments will just
shrivel up and die but this is not just
theoretical for brutus he gives several
examples of how this death of state
power could happen but we'll only look
at the most pressing example the
collection of taxes in the business
therefore of laying and collecting taxes
the idea of confederation is totally
lost and that of one entire republic is
embraced it is proper here to remark
that the authority to lay and collect
taxes is the most important of any power
that can be granted it connects with
almost all other powers everyone who has
thought on this subject must be
convinced that but small sums of money
can be collected in any country by
direct taxes hence when the federal
government begins to exercise the right
of taxation in all its parts the
legislatures of the several states will
find it impossible to raise monies to
support their own governments without
money they cannot be supported and they
must dwindle away and as before observed
their powers will be absorbed in that of
the general government in other words
any government that exists can only
collect a small amount of taxes
otherwise the citizens will grow weary
of that taxation and throw the
government off so if the federal
government is going to collect taxes and
there's only a small amount that people
will tolerate how will the states also
collect taxes and if states cannot
collect taxes they'll shrivel up and die
and now you've got one big powerful
government left in their way now brutus
goes on to make the same argument about
the federal courts if the federal courts
trump state courts then state courts
will soon be rendered obsolete and
unnecessary and then the final part of
the argument is about the size of the
nation and how by its sheer girth a
republican form of government is not
well suited to be installed and brutus
pulls out the big guns for this argument
quoting the baron de montesquieu who
said in his treatise the spirit of the
laws it is natural to a republic to have
only a small territory otherwise it
cannot long subsist wait why can't a
republican government work in a big
territory with a lot of people well
brutus will answer that question with a
question is it practicable for a country
so large and so numerous as they will
soon become to elect a representation
that will speak to their sentiments
without their becoming so numerous as to
be incapable of transacting public
business it certainly is not okay he
answered it with a question and an
answer but whatever his point is with a
nation as large as the united states
both in territory and in people how
could elected representatives possibly
keep their fingers on the pulse of
everyone whom they represent and
brutus's answer is simple it's not
possible and the problem in that
situation is as follows confidence which
the people have in their rulers in a
free republic arises from their knowing
them from their being responsible to
them for their conduct and from the
power they have of displacing them when
they misbehave but in a republic of the
extent of this continent the people in
general will be acquainted with very few
of their rulers the people at large
would know very little of their
proceedings and it would be extremely
difficult to change them okay that's
what you need to know about brutus one
if you need help getting an a in your
class and a five on your exam may then
click right over here and grab a view
packet for more of the videos on the
foundational documents you can have a
look right here and if you want me to
keep making these videos then let me
know by subscribing heimler out
浏览更多相关视频
AP Gov | 1.3 Government Power & Individual Rights | NEW!
Federalist 10 | AP Gov | NEW!
Federalists vs Anti-Federalists in Five Minutes
Federalist No. 10 (part 1) | US government and civics | Khan Academy
The CONSTITUTION [APUSH Review Unit 3 Topic 9 (3.9)] Period 3: 1754-1800
Constitutional Compromises: Crash Course Government and Politics #5
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)