《费城奇迹》

---

真正的“费城奇迹”没有引起Berkin教授的注意，并使这篇最新的宪法注释不那么令人满意，那就是对詹姆斯·麦迪逊(James Madison)的弗吉尼亚戏剧(Virginia Play)中包含的民族主义政府计划的拒绝(这也提醒我们，他不是许多学者所说的“宪法之父”)。它的民族主义在当时受到强烈反对，在麦迪逊自己的《辩论笔记》中也可以看到，它具有双重性质:权力的集中，也就是“巩固”这个词的由来，以及一个由所有美国人组成的政府直接对个人运作的想法(通过比例代表制)，这正是亚洲或土耳其专制的定义，也是大不列颠所成为的同一类型的政府，这就是捍卫古代英国自由的独立战争的原因。

因此，反联邦主义起源于联邦会议，并延续到1787-1788年的批准辩论。除了缺乏大多数美国人都熟悉的《权利法案》外，反联邦党人还坚持各州的权利。他们这样做有几个原因:首先，联邦政府的前提是在其组成部分(前殖民地现在的州)之间分享权力;第二，共和政府只适用于一小块领土(正如孟德斯鸠所言)。1787年7月16日的《大妥协》是迈向新联邦政府的一步，各州在参议院有代表，但那些被恰当地称为反联邦主义者的人要求更多，并在此过程中成为我们联邦共和国的真正缔造者。他们通过让各州重新回到宪法辩论中来做到这一点。由于参议院的代表人数太少，反联邦主义者要求各州自己必须在政府中占有一席之地，以更好地服务于他们不同的利益。与此同时，他们区分了授予的权力(而且是非常具体的权力)和保留给各州的权力(所有其他权力)。其结果是一个新的复合型联邦共和国。除了权力分立之外，这些反联邦主义者还进一步将政治权力划分给了中央政府和各州自己。 In American, government would indeed be republican, federal, and limited rather than national in keeping with the "Spirit of 1776." In the language of the day, it was a union of the states rather than the states united. To use the correct technical term, it was a "compound, confederate republic" unlike any other federal government in the world (exactly as later Confederates would describe it). None of the above "brilliant solutions" of the anti-Federalists, however, are to be found in A Brilliant Solution. What readers get, and what Prof. Berkin ought to know better along with many other constitutional scholars, is the standard Madisonian-Federalist mythology of a national government founded by framers (Federalists) who were not very federalist at all and the acceptance of the plan of government reported by the Federal Convention as "the Constitution of 1787." What about the ratification debate of 1787-1788? Was it meaningless? Why the demand for conditional amendments (hundreds of them) that insisted upon individual liberties and the rights of states and which changed the nature of the union? Why did Federalists oppose a Bill of Rights? What was the purpose of The Federalist? In the end, there are other original intentions and other lessons of the past that Prof. Berkin and others of a nationalist bias would rather forget. Fortunately, in 2003, readers can go on-line to read all the documentary sources for themselves (see the Library of Congress, "A Century of Lawmaking" at http://www.memory.loc.gov.) -----Kirk Wood is professor of history at Alabama State University. His "Nullification, A Constitutional History, 1776-1833" is in progress.

请继续查看更多评论