The Federalist Papers

Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen-name Publius (was the last consul of the Roman Republic before is was overthrown and became a dictatorship).

Purely from reflection and choice can man establish good gov't? The U.S. is an experiment. The Articles of Confederation were a creation of the American Revolution, in which, the federal gov't had no way to govern and was a creature of the SOVEREIGN states.

All of the ancient republics had their moments of brilliancy, but ultimately FAILED.

In Rome, Athens, Sparta, Carthage, etc., Republican gov't was based on virtue (a virtuous citizenry). In order to keep and control the virtuous citizenry, the state being governed must be of relatively small size.

The role or idea of gov't must be shifted from virtue to the retention of natural rights. The smaller, republican states may be kept within a UNION. If the U.S. cannot create more Union between the states, then it is almost certain that the states will fight each other just as the European countries do. This is why the states needed to be UNITED.

1) Federal gov't will become too powerful and states will eventually loose sovereignty. 2) Will a republic of this size even work? 3) Federal gov't won't protect civil/natural rights and will trample them instead.Hamilton argues that the U.S. will not be modeled after the ancient republics.

Believed to be the most important Federalist written in terms of laying out politics. Argues that is is possible to create a gov't that doesn't run relying on a virtuous citizen. The biggest problems within a republic are factions. Factions can be removed in 2 ways: 1) destroying liberty; or 2) giving everyone the same opinions, passions, interests. It is evident then, that factions can only be limited within a republic, not eliminated. The most common and durable source (example) of factions has been the rich vs. the poor (ex. House of Lords and House of Commons). Majority faction is the biggest problem and thus the question becomes: How to limit the majority? The bigger a faction, the more difficult it is to stop.

Create a republic (preferably a large republic), thus creating more factions and making it difficult for a true majority faction to form.

Should the gov't have standing armies? --> If the U.S. is going to have a commercial society, then yes. Need a professional (properly trained) army. If you want good commerce, must have a navy. Greed in-of-itself is not good, but can, in a way, produce some good in terms of commerce. If going to have a commercial republic, must rely on human avarice.

Tyranny or anarchy.

To an extent...they were rather negative examples for the founding fathers to avoid. No pure democracy like Athens, no camp like Sparta, and no instability of Rome (the back-and-forth of tyranny and anarchy). The founding fathers believed that checks and balances can achieve what was thought could be achieved by virtue (because although virtue is nice, the citizenry can't be relied upon to possess it).

Why does Hamilton think that the state gov'ts would be more likely to encroach upon the federal gov't? --> Because this is what we've seen in antiquity. The ambitious will be those who enter into public life. The federal gov't consist of war, peace, and commerce.

Hamilton is arguing that the unlimited power of taxation is not going to undermine state sovereignty. There is no limitation to taxation by the federal gov't, but this is not out of greed. Rather, no one knows what the needs of the U.S. will be in the future. The founding fathers didn't want to tie the hands of Congress, but this does however look like an enormous grant of power. War is part of human nature. For this reason, Alexander Hamilton anticipates that the U.S. will be involved in foreign conflict. Hamilton, in some ways, is suggesting that the founding fathers, in establishing the Constitution, needed to think of how they wanted the nation to turn out.

The light of past republics are not to follow, but rather to lead us away from the dangers of past failures. In regards to term limits: Energy and power seem to depend on longer periods of time. Liberty and stability, on the other hand, would be kept by shorter terms.

Is the Constitution in conformity with republican ideas? --> The U.S. is kind of a radical departure from current forms of republican gov't.

How do you, in some way, judge the power of the national gov't? --> You look at the number of objects giving the gov't power. By increasing the number of objects, you increase the gov'ts power. By trying to nationalize something that is better dealt with among the state or local level, you tend to end-up with bad policy.

Each individual and each department of the gov't is going to want to usurp the powers of the others. The Founding Fathers planned to solve this problem by institutional arrangement. As compared to past republics, this proved to be a much better safe-guard than electing \"virtuous\" people.

The Federalist do not want to take the Constitution to the people through convention for a couple of reasons: 1) the longer the Constitution remains untouched the more respect is will earn from the people; and 2) the less it is touched, the more power it will hold.

Why shouldn't the people elect the members of the judiciary? --> It was thought that the president would have a better judgement of the times than the people. Besides, lifetime appointment overrides any fears of the judiciary gaining too much power. In the Federalists minds, the most dangerous branch of gov't was the legislature because it holds the money, and the ability to make and pass laws. Why then is the president, nowadays, considered to be more powerful than the legislature? --> Through executive orders and power that have come about over time. Also, the introduction of political parties thus allowed the president and members of the same political party in Congress to work together.

Concerning the House: The more frequent elections are, the more tightly bound the representative will be to the people they are representing.

Concerning the House: Originally, the House was only to serve a 1-year term. The extra year given (equaling a 2-year term) may be more dangerous, but may be needed so representatives may better understand their job.

Because every other interest outside of your jurisdiction may be left to your local gov'ts. Therefore, you don't need to have a larger body of representation in the House.

This paper discusses the compromise over pro-slavery and anti-slavery. We would not have a Constitution if it weren't for the 3/5 Compromise. Jefferson held that slavery was a convention, not a natural institution. *According to the Constitution, slaves are referred to as persons (as apposed to property).*

Holds the power of the purse (ability to tax).

Being American is not a consequence of birth from one's parents, so what is it? --> Becoming American can be formed through one's education. Being American seems to come from a set of ideas more than anything else. What is the function of the Senate in regards to its relationship with the House? --> \"Anyone\" can run for the House of Representatives, whereas the Senate is more \"select\". The appointment of Senators by their States was meant to secure the authority of the States in the Federal Gov't.

Senators are given longer terms so that hopefully they will do what is (though sometimes not immediately) best for the people of their state. Representatives, on the other hand, tend to fall to the will of the people because they are more frequently up for re-election. Length of term was also meant to give greater stability to the body. The Founding Fathers, however, were not worried about political tyranny by one man, but more by tyranny referring to mob rule.

Normally, one would not associate \"good gov't\" with secrecy, but in order to conduct foreign affairs, secrecy must be had. This becomes one of the defects of any kind of republican gov't; sometimes it is best to keep the people in the dark on some international/foreign relations.

In the Founders' minds, problems did not stem from bad law, but, rather, from some non-political origin. The more legislation that is passed to \"fix\" society, the more liberty that is being given up.

To Hamilton and Madison, the biggest threat to the gov't is the legislature. The legislative branch should be the strongest because it is the branch most closely tied to the people. The people fear, however, that the biggest threat to the gov't will be a president (because in order to challenge and check the legislature, the executive must be a powerful branch).

The States need UNITY, therefore it is better to have one executive as apposed to multiple men (the states will then be less likely to divide between the separate executives; such as Rome did). Often, quick action will need to be taken and the deliberation will need to come to an end, therefore one man can make a quicker, more decisive response than several. There cannot be any \"buck passing\" in the executive office; the blame must be responsible to one person. A single man is much more easily watched than several.

Is fame virtuous? --> I believe yes and no. Fame can be good because you follow the will of the people, but can become dangerous if the president becomes too ambitious.

How do you make virtue coincide with duty? --> For Hamilton, a weak Executive is more to be feared than a powerful one. Weakness will eventually lead to the desmise of the Union; either to the people, or to a foreign power. Ex. Shay's Rebellion

Supreme Court Justices serve for life, dependent on \"good behavior\". Also, they are appointed by the Executive with approval from the Senate. --> This is something that really concerned the Anti-Federalist. Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, attempts to defend why the Judiciary must be so independent.

The Judiciary has no power of the sword (the people) or of the purse (money/taxes) such as Congress does. The Judiciary is not to read into the \"spirit\" of the Constitution, but rather to the letter. If a Supreme Court Justice reads into the \"spirit\", the people are being ruled by a judge, not the Constitution.

By not mentioning things in the Constitution, questions cannot be raised about all things not mentioned because those are things which do not concern the federal gov't. Hamilton ends Federalist 84 with the idea of Federalism.