Written under the collective pseudonym "Publius," The Federalist Papers consist of eighty-five essays published between October 1787 and May 1788, forming a cornerstone of American political philosophy. Primarily authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, these essays defend the newly proposed Constitution, arguing for its ratification and addressing objections raised by its critics. Despite being lengthy and partisan, these writings remain unmatched in articulating the foundational principles of the United States.

The Vision of a New Government

Alexander Hamilton opened and concluded the series, describing the Constitution crafted by the Philadelphia Convention as energetic, republican, and aligned with state constitutions, ensuring both property and liberty. He implored citizens to reject demagogues who criticized its advocates as merely the "wealthy, well-born, and the great," urging a rise above partisan divisions to achieve the framers' vision of America. James Madison joined him in dismissing concerns about the absence of a bill of rights or limits on presidential reelection, arguing for ratification with the possibility of subsequent amendments rather than preemptive revisions.

Arguments for Ratification

Madison emphasized that the new Constitution sought to expand upon the principles of the Articles of Confederation, strengthening the Union at a critical time with powers appropriate to its needs. He argued that the ratification process was practical, not unconstitutional, as the existing Congress had summoned the convention. The Constitution was to be ratified because it would "accomplish the views and happiness of the people," reflecting the Declaration of Independence's assertion that people have the right to "abolish or alter" their governments for their safety and happiness.

Federalism and Nationalism

Madison derided "theoretic" politicians who believed in equalizing political rights to harmonize possessions, opinions, and passions. He advocated for a federal republic suitable to America's vastness and growth, wherein governance was conducted through elected representatives. Although the central government operated nationally upon citizens, its scope was federally limited to "certain enumerated objects," ensuring a balance between national and state powers.

Hamilton concurred that the new government would address "enumerated and legitimate objects" but stressed that its laws were "the SUPREME LAW of the land." State officials, bound by oath, would integrate into the system and support its enforcement. Both founders viewed a military establishment as essential, not as a threat, due to its reliance on state militia and periodic congressional funding.

Interpreting the Constitution

Madison foresaw infrastructure improvements under federal guidance, but dismissed the notion that the "general welfare" clause expanded governmental power beyond "few and defined" constitutional powers. Both he and Hamilton agreed that the "necessary and proper" clause facilitated the achievement of governmental objectives, asserting, "No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that whenever the end is required, the means are authorized."

Although recognizing the supremacy of constitutional laws, Hamilton and Madison maintained that these would not compromise popular liberty or state authority. The separation of powers within the federal government was designed to prevent overreach, ensuring that all actions remained subject to popular approval.

A Stronger Financial Foundation

Hamilton and Madison argued that the new government should have secure financial sources for its operations. Despite Hamilton's advocacy for broad taxation powers, he assured skeptics that "the prudence and firmness of the people" would maintain the balance between federal and state powers. They agreed that the states' fiscal needs would narrow post-revolutionary debt clearance, allowing "independent and uncontrollable authority" over their revenues, while the central government focused on external taxation.

Judicial and Legislative Insights

Hamilton argued for a judiciary capable of reviewing legislation, aligning this process with colonial practices and the framers' intentions. Judicial review would safeguard laws' administration,...