One of the principal disagreements between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists surrounded the role of the new Constitution in relation to state authority.
Federalists argued that the Constitution would make the federal Constitution plenary only in certain areas while preserving the role of the states. The Anti-Federalists feared that the federal Constitution would result in a nationalized government where states would play no role and the federal government would overwhelm any semblance of state authority. Panelists will debate what the Federalists meant when they argued for a plenary, but limited federal Constitution, the different views they held, and whether the Federalists or Anti-Federalists were correct.
Featuring:

Moderator: Honorable Trevor N. McFadden, United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Prof. John Mikhail, Carroll Professor of Jurisprudence, Georgetown Law
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center Stanford Law School