Three Pillars of Power: Luther Martin’s Anti-Federalist Warnings
Luther Martin warned that the Constitution would create a centralized national government with few real restraints – one that would steadily erode state sovereignty, override local control, and impose its will under the guise of law.
In his essay Genuine Information, he outlined the many ways he believed the proposed system would accelerate the consolidation of power. Among these dangers, he singled out three provisions as particularly alarming: an all-powerful federal judiciary, the ability to suspend habeas corpus, and the continuation of slavery.
Together, Martin saw these provisions as a dangerous trifecta – key pillars of a broader system of unchecked national power. He feared this system would reduce the states to mere administrative units, make justice unattainable, and embed moral contradiction into the very foundation of the new republic.
FEDERAL JUDICIARY: SUPREME AND UNCHECKED
Martin warned that a federal judiciary with far-reaching powers would lie at the core of this centralized national system.
With sweeping appellate jurisdiction, no external checks from state courts, and exclusive judicial authority over cases arising under the Constitution, Martin believed the federal judiciary would become a tool for consolidating federal power – allowing the general government to define the scope of its own power without any recourse for the states.
“These courts, and these only, will have a right to decide upon the laws of the United States, and all questions arising upon their construction, and in a judicial manner to carry those laws into execution; to which the courts, both superior and inferior, of the respective States, and their judges and other magistrates, are rendered incompetent.”
Martin argued that by centralizing judicial power in the federal courts, which would be “confined to [deciding] all cases arising under the proposed constitution,” the Constitution would effectively sideline state judiciaries, stripping them of their ability to safeguard local interests or resist federal encroachments.
He further warned that state courts would be explicitly stripped of jurisdiction over “all cases in law or equity, arising under the proposed constitution,” rendering state judiciaries “incompetent” and reducing them to mere administrative bodies, powerless to check federal power.
Martin argued that by empowering “judges who are appointed by Congress” with exclusive authority to determine whether “any laws or regulations of the Congress, or any acts of its President or other officers, are contrary to, or not warranted by the constitution,” the Constitution ensured that the general government would define the limits of its own power – leaving the states defenseless against its expansion.
Martin later clarified that his original proposal for the Supremacy Clause, introduced during the Philadelphia Convention, was designed to ensure that state courts – not federal courts – would serve as the first arbiters involving federal laws and treaties. His concern was not just the supremacy of federal law, but how and where it would be interpreted in judicial proceedings.
“When this clause was introduced, it was not established that inferior continental courts should be appointed for trial of all questions arising on treaties and on the laws of the general government, and it was my wish and hope that every question of that kind would have been determined, in the first instance, in the courts of the respective states.”
Under his proposal, Martin believed that state courts would not operate merely as subordinates to federal power, but would serve as critical safeguards against unconstitutional overreach. Placing initial responsibility for interpreting federal laws and treaties in state courts, he explained, meant that judges would be bound to reject any that conflicted with their state’s constitution or bill of rights.
“…if such treaties or laws were inconsistent with our constitution and bill of rights, the judiciaries of this state would be bound to reject the first and abide by the last; since in the form I introduced the clause, notwithstanding treaties and the laws of the general government were intended to be superior to the laws of our state government, where they should be opposed to each other, yet that they were not proposed, nor meant to be superior to our constitution and bill of rights.”
However, the final version of the Supremacy Clause stripped state courts of their ability to serve as the first arbiters of federal law, leaving disputes over its meaning increasingly subject to centralized, federal interpretation.
Martin viewed the final Supremacy Clause as a “total and unconditional surrender” of state sovereignty. In his view, it empowered the general government to impose laws that directly violated rights secured by state constitutions, with no judicial recourse at the state level.
Taken together, Martin saw this erosion of state judicial power as an intentional feature of the Constitution – one designed to strip the states of their ability to resist centralized control.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER FACTS AND LAW
With state courts stripped of jurisdiction, Martin warned that the Supreme Court’s power would inevitably expand – not only over constitutional interpretation but also over jury trials, extending to both matters of law and fact.
He believed this would strip juries of their role as a check against arbitrary power, reducing trials to mere formalities. Martin warned that under this system, “the general government may … have the facts examined again, and decided upon by its own judges.”
In Martin’s view, this would effectively nullify the foundational protection of trial by jury – long considered a safeguard against arbitrary power – reducing local jury trials to empty rituals and stripping state courts of their ability to protect individual rights.
Martin warned that by establishing such a powerful judiciary, the Constitution would dismantle this core safeguard of liberty. He emphasized that jury trials had “long been considered the surest barrier against arbitrary power, and the palladium of liberty.”
But under the new system, he cautioned that they “are taken away by the proposed form of government, not only in a great variety of questions between individual and individual, but in every case, whether civil or criminal, arising under the laws of the United States, or the execution of those laws.”
Because the federal judiciary would hold jurisdiction over both law and fact, Martin warned that ordinary people – especially those challenging federal officials like tax collectors – would hold “little prospect of success, and almost a certain prospect of ruin.”
BURDEN ON ORDINARY CITIZENS
Martin argued that this consolidation of judicial power would not only strip states of their ability to protect their people – it would also make justice virtually unattainable for most.
With jury protections eroded and federal courts wielding unchecked power, Martin warned ordinary people would be trapped in a legal system designed to serve federal interests rather than deliver justice. Worse, those who attempted to challenge it would face overwhelming financial and logistical burdens, ensuring that true justice remained out of reach for most people.
This raised another concern: justice would become a privilege of the wealthy, who alone could endure “a loss of time, a neglect of business, and an expense which will be greater than the original grievance.”
Martin emphasized that this burden would fall hardest on the “middle and common classes,” as even seeking relief from injustice would force them to pursue cases in distant federal courts: “the application must be made to one of the courts of the United States.”
Even those who prevailed in a lower court would not necessarily find relief. If their case were appealed, they would face an impossible choice: “…at once give up his cause, or attend to it at the distance of perhaps more than a thousand miles.”
Martin concluded that the appeal process would impose crushing burdens, demanding “a loss of time, a neglect of business, and an expense which will be greater than the original grievance, and to which men in moderate circumstances would be utterly unequal.”
HABEAS CORPUS: A TOOL FOR OPPRESSION?
For Martin, one of the most alarming consequences of centralized judicial power was that it gave the federal government the ability to imprison individuals indefinitely – without any recourse to state courts.
He warned that the Constitution’s provision allowing the suspension of habeas corpus was ripe for abuse and could become “an engine of oppression.”
This power could be weaponized to silence opposition, Martin warned. If a state resisted the general government’s directives – “however arbitrary and unconstitutional” – the general government could declare it an act of rebellion, leading to the suspension of habeas corpus and the indefinite imprisonment of those who defied its authority. As he put it:
“…whenever a State should oppose its views, however arbitrary and unconstitutional, and refuse submission to them, the general government may declare it to be an act of rebellion, and, suspending the habeas corpus act, may seize upon the persons of those advocates of freedom, who have had virtue and resolution enough to excite the opposition…”
Once invoked, this power would not only suppress opposition – it would also exile political dissidents, severing them from their homes, communities, and support networks. As Martin described, “…[the government] may imprison them during its pleasure, in the remotest part of the Union; so that a citizen of Georgia might be bastiled in the furthest part of New Hampshire, or a citizen of New Hampshire in the furthest extreme to the south, cut off from their family, their friends, and their every connexion.”
By permanently isolating those who resisted, Martin warned, the general government could ensure that opposition was not merely punished -but crushed.
SLAVERY
Martin saw slavery as an irreconcilable contradiction in a system that claimed to protect liberty while preserving human bondage. To him, it was more than a moral failure – it was a damning indictment of a Constitution that professed to defend freedom while entrenching oppression.
Though a slaveholder himself, Martin argued that slavery had no place in the United States and should be abolished. At the Philadelphia Convention, he denounced it as “an odious bargain with sin,” condemning it as “inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature in the Constitution.”
Speaking before the Maryland legislature, Martin emphasized that the Constitution granted the general government “full and absolute power to regulate commerce,” meaning it could restrain or even abolish the slave trade. Yet despite this sweeping power, it carved out an exception for “the only branch of commerce, which is unjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind.”
Rather than protecting slavery, Martin insisted, the Constitution should have explicitly banned “the further importation of slaves.”
Further, he argued that the general government should have clear constitutional authority to enact policies for “the gradual abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves which are already in the States.”
Martin was not alone in condemning the Constitution’s protection of slavery. George Mason, another fierce critic, opposed it in part because of its compromise on the international slave trade.
In his notes on the Philadelphia Convention, James Madison specifically wrote that Mason “held it essential in every point of view, that the Genl. Govt. should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.”
Later, in a May 1788 letter to Thomas Jefferson, Mason summarized his objections, writing that “a Compromise between the Eastern, and the two Southern States, to permit the latter to continue the Importation of Slaves for twenty odd Years” was the key to establishing a majority in favor of the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention. He called the importation of slaves “a more favourite Object with them than the Liberty and Happiness of the People.”
THE INESCAPABLE OUTCOME
Martin warned that the Constitution’s structure would pave the way for an unchecked national government – one that would steadily erode state sovereignty and threaten individual liberty.
He argued that the supremacy of federal courts would strip states of their ability to protect local interests – and impose crushing burdens on the people, especially those of modest means, who would struggle to obtain justice in a distant, unaccountable system.
More broadly, Martin warned that allowing federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal laws would make the general government the judge of its own power – eliminating any meaningful external check.
He also warned that federal control over habeas corpus would give the general government a tool to silence opposition, detain dissenters, and erode liberty under the guise of law.
In a nutshell, there would be no justice under a federal justice system.
Martin’s warnings were not abstract fears – they foreshadowed real constitutional struggles that would define American history.
Nowhere was this more evident than in his critique of slavery, which laid bare the Constitution’s greatest contradiction – one that would fester for generations, finally erupting in a bloody war.
Latest posts by Mike Maharrey (see all)