Michael I. Meyerson, Liberty's Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote the Federalist Papers, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the World, New York: Basic Books, 2008. Pp. xiv + 309. $26.95 (ISBN 0-465-00264-1).

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 213-215
Author(s):  
Erik J. Chaput
2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
pp. 1463-1491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konrad Lachmayer

For ten years, the legitimacy of constitutional comparison in courts has been intensely debated. The case law of the U.S. Supreme Court led to an intense discussion on constitutional comparison and reached its peak with the Great Debate between Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer. Justice Breyer argued in favor of constitutional comparison while Justice Scalia refused the comparative approach. Justice Scalia stated:[Y]ou are talking about using foreign law to determine the content of American constitutional law—to be sure that we're on the right track, that we have the same moral and legal framework as the rest of the world. But we don't have the same moral and legal framework as the rest of the world, and never have. If you told the framers of the Constitution that we're to be just like Europe, they would have been appalled. If you read the Federalist Papers, they are full of statements that make very clear the framers didn't have a whole lot of respect for many of the rules in European countries. Madison, for example, speaks contemptuously of the countries of continental Europe, “who are afraid to let their people bear arms.’


1988 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danny M. Adkison ◽  
Lisa McNair Palmer

It seems appropriate in this bicentennial year to examine the treatment introductory American government textbooks give the U.S. Constitution. Nearly every text devotes a chapter (typically, the second) to the events leading up to, and the writing of, the Constitution. But what of the political theory on which the Constitution is based? The Constitution, by itself, is too brief and devoid of theory to provide students with an overall assessment of that document. The source that is often relied upon by constitutional scholars to provide that theory is The Federalist Papers. It is the textbooks' treatment of these essays that we will explore here.The Federalist Papers were 85 newspaper editorials written by Hamilton, Madison, and jay, under the pseudonym Publius, in support of ratification of the proposed Constitution. The first essay was published October 27, 1787, and when the last essay was published, the authors had written 175,000 words. This was an average of 1,000 words a day, and was about 35 times the length of the Constitution itself.Hamilton initiated the project in reaction to another set of pseudonymous literature published in New York. New York support of the Constitution was essential, and it was doubtful that the state would ratify. As the seat of the central government, New York was in a pivotal position on the eastern seaboard. It had a lively commerce, and thus was not eager for change. Governor George Clinton staunchly opposed ratification. New York had not signed the Constitution because all of its delegates, except Hamilton, had left in protest and no one signatory was authorized to approve the document for the state.


2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-132
Author(s):  
Derek Schutz

While the drafting of the American Constitution in the summer of 1787 is recognized as a contentious period, the ratification of the proposed Constitution in each of the states held its own challenges. The Federalist Papers are widely seen as providing the case for the confidentially crafted Constitution, particularly in the state of New York. Yet the extent to which they played a role in convincing citizens and delegates at the time remains unclear. This essay seeks to understand the role that these 85 Federalist Papers played in the Ratification debate in the state of New York.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document