I wonder if I’m the only Conservative in the world who ever found some value in a single page of the Anti-Federalist Papers? While the Federalist Papers are a great body of work used by those who pressed for Federalism, there were detractors who did have a good counter-point about the structure of our judiciary. THEY WERE THE ONES who said that our structure gave too much power to the Judiciary and we would be in the court ruled mess we have today.

Look at what they said in Antifederalist No. 78-79 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 1).

…
The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control.
…

While so much focus is put on the Federalist Papers, I think some Conservatives would probably find some value in parts of the Anti-Federalist Papers. I respect the work of the “founding fathers”, but I don’t look at those “founding fathers” behind the Federalist Papers as gods. I don’t look at any of the “founding fathers” as gods, because my God is in heaven and his son’s spirit lives in me. I don’t take membership in a political party. So I can read both sides of the argument . I won’t say I’d want a nation ruled by the Antifederalists, but on the judiciary I wish somebody had taken them more seriously. They made plenty of predictions of doom and gloom, but on some points they hit the nail on the head with precision.

Antifederalist No. 7 ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL LEAD TO CIVIL WAR also has some interesting statements.

…
The Congress’s having power without control-to borrow money on the credit of the United States; their having power to appoint their own salaries, and their being paid out of the treasury of the United States, thereby, in some measure, rendering them independent of the individual states; their being judges of the qualification and election of their own members, by which means they can get men to suit any purpose; together with Col. Mason’s wise and judicious objections-are grievances, the very idea of which is enough to make every honest citizen exclaim in the language of Cato, 0 Liberty, 0 my country!
…

And the author of this particular Antifederalist paper certainly was pro-life.

…
And when the sword has decided quarrel, the scene is closed with banishments, forfeitures, and barbarous executions that entail distress on children then unborn. May Heaven avert the dreadful catastrophe!
…

Even back then they knew of abortion and even then it was seen as a horrible act by those with a solid foundation in the Lord.

Also, on the issue of slavery, in Antifederalist No. 54 APPORTIONMENT AND SLAVERY: NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN VIEWS, someone who was anti-slavery wrote the following powerful words.

“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.” What a strange and unnecessary accumulation of words are here used to conceal from the public eye what might have been expressed in the following concise manner: Representatives are to be proportioned among the States respectively, according to the number of freemen and slaves inhabiting them, counting five slaves for three freemen.

“In a free State,” says the celebrated Montesquieu, “every man, who is supposed to be a free agent, ought to be concerned in his own government, therefore the legislature should reside in the whole body of the people, or their representatives.” But it has never been alleged that those who are not free agents can, upon any rational principle, have anything to do in government, either by themselves or others. If they have no share in government, why is the number of members in the assembly to be increased on their account? Is it because in some of the States, a considerable part of the property of the inhabitants consists in a number of their fellow-men, who are held in bondage, in defiance of every idea of benevolence, justice and religion, and contrary to all the principles of liberty which have been publicly avowed in the late Glorious Revolution? If this be a just ground for representation, the horses in some of the States, and the oxen in others, ought to be represented-for a great share of property in some of them consists in these animals; and they have as much control over their own actions as these poor unhappy creatures, who are intended to be described in the above recited clause, by the words, “all other persons.” By this mode of apportionment, the representatives of the different parts of the Union will be extremely unequal; in some of the Southern States the slaves are nearly equal in number to the free men; and for all these slaves they will be entitled to a proportionate share in the legislature; this will give them an unreasonable weight in the government, which can derive no additional strength, protection, nor defense from the slaves, but the contrary. Why, then, should they be represented? What adds to the evil is, that these States are to be permitted to continue the inhuman traffic of importing slaves until the year 1808-and for every cargo of these unhappy people which unfeeling, unprincipled, barbarous and avaricious wretches may tear from their country, friends and tender connections, and bring into those States, they are to be rewarded by having an increase of members in the General Assembly….

- BRUTUS

I feel we have the best thing going in the entire world. But we should not be afraid to consider areas for improvement.