Teaching the Federalist Papers by Simulating a Constitutional Ratifying Convention

1989 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-7
Author(s):  
Donald K. Alper
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
The Political ◽  
American Political Thought ◽  
Federalist Papers ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
The Federalist Papers

For the past 12 years, I have regularly taught an upper-division course titled American Political Thought. This course typically enrolls between 30 and 40 students and provides the single opportunity for political science majors to focus intensively on the political thought of the Revolutionary and Constitutional eras. Like most courses on American political thought, this one includes a section on the Federalist Papers and a good deal of reading and discussion of the speeches and writings of the anti-federalists. And, like most instructors, I have often felt frustration in trying to get students excited about these “classics.”This year, inspired by the fanfare surrounding the Bicentennial of the writing of the Constitution, I developed a constitutional ratifying convention simulation as a major component of the course. Rather than simply reading and discussing the writings of federalists and anti-federalists, the students would have to roleplay particular writers and act-out the arguments that are found in anti-federalist documents and The Federalist Papers. The class was divided into two equal-sized teams of federalists and anti-federalists, and they were given nine topical areas with corresponding readings which would form the substance of the convention debates. The students were encouraged to play the role of particular characters, for example, Madison, Hamilton and Jay on the federalist side and Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, and Melancton Smith on the anti-federalist side. To get students fully involved in their subject matter and to make the simulation fun, I made it clear that high sounding rhetoric, period costumes, and appropriate decor in the convention room would be most welcome.

scholarly journals Theology of Revolution: In Ali Shari’ati and Walter Benjamin’s Political Thought

Religions ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 504
Author(s):  
Mina Khanlarzadeh
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Essential Role ◽  
Walter Benjamin ◽  
The Political ◽  
Present Moment ◽  
The Past ◽  
German Jewish

In this paper, I offer a comparative analysis of the political thoughts of twentieth century Iranian revolutionary thinker and sociologist Ali Shari’ati (1933–1977) and German-Jewish philosopher Walter Benjamin (1892–1940). Despite their conspicuously independent historical-theoretical trajectories, both Shari’ati and Benjamin engaged with theology and Marxism to create theological–political conceptions of the revolution of the oppressed. Shari’ati re-interpreted and re-animated Shia history from the angle of contemporary concerns to theorize a revolution against all forms of domination. In comparison, Benjamin fused Marxism with Jewish theology in his call to seize the possibilities of past failed revolutions in the present. Both Shari’ati and Benjamin conceptualized an active messianism led by each generation, eliminating the wait for the return of a messiah. As a result, each present moment takes on a messianic potential; the present plays an essential role to both thinkers. Past was also essential to both, because theology (through remembrance) had made the past sufferings incomplete to them. Both thinkers viewed past sufferings as an integral part of present struggles for justice in the form of remembrance (or yād or zekr for Shari’ati, and Zekher for Benjamin). I explore the ways Shari’ati and Benjamin theorized the role of the past in the present, remembrance, and messianism to create a dialectical relation between theology and Marxism to reciprocally transform and compliment both of them.

scholarly journals Tyranny and administrative law

2018 ◽  
Vol 277 (1) ◽  
pp. 15
Author(s):  
D. A. Candeub
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Administrative State ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Federalist Papers ◽  
Public Comment ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
The Federalist Papers

<p>Tirania e o direito administrativo</p><p> </p><p><em>The Federalist Papers </em>define “tyranny” as “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many.” This definition would seem to include the modern administrative agency, which exercises all three powers. To avoid tyrannical agencies and their illegitimate exercise of power, judges and academics look to administrative law. Its procedures and requirements, such as public comment, judicial review, agency reason-giving and deliberation, and executive oversight, saddle agencies with checks and balances and, therefore, legitimacy. Yet unease with the administrative state continues; indeed, it seems to be in a constant crisis of legitimacy, suggesting that administrative law’s quest for legitimacy has not succeeded. This Article argues that this crisis of legitimacy stems from the inherent conflict between the assumptions underlying those of administrative law and the Constitution. These sets of assumptions differ profoundly over political actors’ motivations and human nature, rationality in political and administrative decision-making, and the role of executive lawmaking in a democracy. This Article compares <em>The Federalist Papers </em>and administrative law and scholarship to uncover those differences. But this Article does not engage in an “originalist” critique of administrative law. Instead, it shows that administrative law’s crisis of legitimacy inevitably proceeds from its jarring discontinuity with deep assumptions underlying our constitutional structure.</p><p> </p><p>A obra <em>O federalista </em>define “tirania” como “a acumulação de todos os poderes, legislativo, executivo e judiciário, nas mesmas mãos, seja na de um, alguns ou vários”. Essa definição pareceria incluir a agência administrativa moderna, que exerce todos os três poderes. Para evitar agências tiranas e seu exercício ilegítimo do poder, juízes e acadêmicos procuram o direito administrativo. Seus procedimentos e requerimentos, como comentários públicos, revisão judicial, agência de razão e deliberação e supervisão executiva, selam agências com verificações e balanços e, portanto, legitimação. Ainda assim, o desconforto com o Estado administrativo continua; inclusive, parece ser uma constante crise de legitimidade, sugerindo que a busca do direito administrativo por legitimidade não prosperou. Este artigo argumenta que essa crise de legitimidade se origina do conflito inerente entre hipóteses subjacentes às do direito administrativo e a Constituição. Esse conjunto de hipóteses difere profundamente das motivações de atores políticos e da natureza humana, da racionalidade na tomada de decisões políticas e administrativas, e em toda a legislação executiva na democracia. Este artigo compara a obra <em>O federalista</em>, as leis administrativas e a escolaridade para revelar aquelas diferenças. Mas este artigo não se engaja em uma crítica “original” do direito administrativo. Pelo contrário, mostra que a crise de legitimidade do direito administrativo inevitavelmente provém de chocante descontinuidade com premissas subjacentes à estrutura constitucional.</p>

ARISTOTLE ON THE MIXED CONSTITUTION AND ITS RELEVANCE FOR AMERICAN POLITICAL THOUGHT

2007 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie-Ann Biondi
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
Political Society ◽  
Constitutional Design ◽  
American Political Thought ◽  
Federalist Papers ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
The Federalist Papers ◽  
To Come ◽  
Mixed Constitution

Contemporary political discourse is marked with the language of democracy, and Western countries in particular seek to promote democracy at home and abroad. However, there is a sublimated conflict in general political discourse between a desire to rely on alleged political experts and a desire to assert the supposed common sense of all men. Can the struggle between the democratic and aristocratic values embodied in this conflict be reconciled? The question is perennial, and raises issues that are central to constitutional design. Aristotle, developing in significant ways insights made by his teacher Plato, grapples with it in his Politics. Aristotle's views on these matters are relevant—by way of the American Founders'—to contemporary American politics and modern democracies generally. During the eighteenth century, the Founders, some of whom explicitly reached back to Aristotle's work, also struggled—especially in The Federalist Papers—with these thorny issues of constitutional design. They created the U.S. Constitution in part to address these very same problems and issues. We are living in some ways, then, in the shadow of Aristotle's political theorizing, albeit as transposed by the American Founders. Both Aristotle and some of the American Founders theoretically favor aristocracy over democracy, but concede that in practice a blend of the two has to be integrated into the fundamental structure of political society. We need to reconnect with these important political discussions in order to come to terms with aristocratic and democratic values in our current circumstances.

American Government Textbooks and The Federalist Papers

1988 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danny M. Adkison ◽  
Lisa McNair Palmer
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Central Government ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
American Government ◽  
Federalist Papers ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
The Federalist Papers ◽  
Eastern Seaboard

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.

WORLD HISTORY IN THE ATOMIC AGE: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE IN THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 837-867 ◽  
Author(s):  
SUNIL PURUSHOTHAM
Keyword(s):  
Political Thought ◽  
World History ◽  
The State ◽  
Historical Change ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Past ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Jawaharlal Nehru

Jawaharlal Nehru was both a historian and a self-conscious agent of historical change. This essay explores his political thought by bringing these two perspectives together. I argue that his approaches to a number of issues, including the state project that has been his most significant legacy, shared a concern with linking together the past, present and future. My concern here is primarily with the post-1947 phase of Nehru's career, which was marked by key shifts in his political thought due to a perceived transformation of temporal experience and an altered relationship with history. By attending to the way his thought worked through notions of temporality and historicity, this article offers insights into Nehru's understanding of technological modernity, violence, socialism, the individual, the nation and the role of the state.

scholarly journals Federalism and confederate stances in the political speech of independent Brazil: the concepts in the writings of Frei Caneca

Almanack ◽  
2017 ◽  
pp. 183-206
Author(s):  
Maria Saenz Leme
Keyword(s):  
The Political ◽  
Political Speech ◽  
National State ◽  
Federalist Papers ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
Classical Work ◽  
The Federalist Papers ◽  
Provincial Autonomy

Abstract: This study analyses the understanding of federation and confederation that can be seized from the writings of Frei Caneca, produced during the independence process of Brazil and the beginning of the First Reign. These terms were used interchangeably in the period and spanned with the same intensity different political notions that were juxtaposed at the time, involving the sovereignty of a developing national state and the emphases on how provincial autonomy was considered. The Federalist Papers, a classical work for the notional understanding of the liberal state's formation in its federative dimension, will be used as a theoretical counterpoint to this debate.

1776: The British Dimension

1977 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-199
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Public Life ◽  
The Political ◽  
American Political Thought ◽  
The Past ◽  
American Intellectual ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Revolutionary Period

When I was invited to speak here today and it was suggested that I talk on the political aspects of Anglo-American intellectual relations, especially in the Revolutionary period, I thought I would try to summarize the recent writings of American historians on the development of American political thought in the formative years of the eighteenth century—its branching off from a peculiar line of English radical thought and its realization in American political institutions in ways that have profoundly affected American public life. It is a subject on which American historians have lavished much thought and writing in the past fifteen years, and while its outlines are now quite clear, it is still a subject with unresolved problems in interpretation. It is that subject that I indicated in a few sentences in the programme notes that you received.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document