A REVIEW OF HOW IT ALL BEGAN

THE MAGNA CARTA

(1215)

Magna Carta, meaning “The Great Charter”, is one of the most famous documents in the world. But what does the document actually say?

The charter of English liberties was granted by King John on June 15, 1215; by declaring the sovereign to be subject to the rule of law and documenting the liberties held by “free men”, the Magna Carta provided the foundational expression of the concept of due process in Angelo-American jurisprudence. It was the first document to put into writing the principle that the King and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the King from exploiting his power and placing limits on royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself.

Clause 14 springs the idea of no taxation without representation and with it the establishment of a common council, duly embodied in parliament, as a means of obtaining popular consent. Clause 35 demands standard weights and measures. For trade to flourish, commercial confidence was essential. To secure this, buyers and sellers have to work according to universally agreed measures. It is an intriguing fact that, of all the principles enunciated in the Magna Carta, besides those concerning justice and due process, it is that weights and measures be fixed that was most eagerly adopted in the constitution of the newly fledged colonies of North America. The same principle reappeared in the Constitution of the United States. Once again what we find here is a concern for the public good, not merely for the selfish interests of one particular class or constituency. Clauses 39 and 40 forbid the sale of justice and insist upon legal due process. From this sprang not only the principle of habeas corpus (that accused are not to held indefinitely without trial), but the idea of the right to trial by jury (by the accuser’s peers).

These Magna Carta basic rights can be seen embodied in the Constitution of the United States of America (1789). “No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseized (have property or land taken away), outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land”. “To no one will We sell to no one will we deny or delay, right or justice. And in the Bill of Rights (1791); The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution echoes the charter (“no person shall …. Be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law.”) is of a direct descendant of the Magna Carta’s guarantee of proceeding according to the “law of the land”. Also, the 14th Amendment to the United States of America Constitution, can trace its ancestry to the Magna Carta. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

THE SONS OF LIBERTY, THE STAMP ACT, AND THE BOSTON TEA PARTY

(1765)

The Sons of Liberty was a loosely organized, clandestine, sometimes violent political organization active in the Thirteen American Colonies, founded to advance the rights of the colonists and to fight unfair taxation and financial limitations imposed upon them by the British government. The organization formed in the American colonies in the summer of 1765 to oppose the Stamp Act. The Sons of Liberty took their name from a speech given in the British Parliament by Issac Barre (February 1765), in which he referred to the colonials who had opposed unjust British measures as the “sons of liberty”.

The origins of the Sons of Liberty are unclear, but some of the organization’s roots can be traced to the Loyal Nine, a secretive Boston political organization whose members included Benjamin Edes and Samuel Adams. The Boston chapter of the Sons of Liberty often met under the cover of darkness beneath the “Liberty Tree”, a stately elm in Hanover Square. The Sons of Liberty used grassroots activism to push back against British rule, orchestrating effective resistance movements against British rule in colonial America on the eve of the American Revolution. They rallied support for colonial resistance through the use of petitions, assemblies, and propaganda, and they sometimes resorted to violence against British officials, including The Boston Tea Party. They were instrumental in preventing the enforcement of the Stamp Act; and they remained an active pre-Revolutionary force against the British Crown.

The AMERICAN REVOLUTION

(1775-1783)

The U.S. War of Independence (also called the American Revolution or the Revolutionary War, a seven year war) was the insurrection fought that is forever ingrained within our American identity and provides all Americans a sense of who we are, or at the very least, who we should be. The war was a war unlike any other – one of ideas and ideals that shaped the course of human events. British attempts to assert greater control over colonial affairs after a long period of salutary neglect, including the imposition of unpopular taxes, contributed to growing estrangement between the British Crown and a large and influential segment of colonists who ultimately saw armed rebellion as their only course. Our forefathers fought for liberty, freedom and republican ideals the likes of which has never before been seen in any style of organized government preceding them. In many ways then, the American Revolution was an experiment: an experiment which overthrew the rule of a foreign power, an experiment which defeated the world’s most powerful military, with significant battles at Lexington, Concord, and Yorktown; and an experiment which laid the groundwork for a nation attempting to create itself. The eventual victory of American forces led to the Declaration of Independence and concluded with the Treaty of Paris (1783) establishing the United States of America as a sovereign nation.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

(1776)

When we think about the 4th of July, many of us think of picnics and fireworks. We may even think of the eloquence of the Declaration of Independence, formally adopted on July 4, 1776. (The signing of the Declaration of Independence didn’t actually occur until August 2, 1776).

This was the official statement by the Colonies to the British government that they would no longer recognize British rule, and was a statement to fellow Colonists that this was the time for the Colonies to be governed by Colonists. The Declaration of Independence sought to place before mankind the common sense of the subject.

The Founders declared, against the historical experiences and beliefs of the ages, six founding First Principles, all of which were quite revolutionary at the time and remain revolutionary today:

1. THE RULE OF LAW: Although not articulated expressly, undergirding the entire Declaration of Independence is the idea of the rule of law. In other words, the government and the People are both bound by the law. The reason we needed to declare independence was because the British Empire was no longer following the fundamental unwritten English Constitution. Until 1776, it was just assumed that most rulers did not need to follow the law, and that huge swaths of the privileged were exempt from the laws that applied to the vast majority of the People. The Declaration of Independence declared the law should apply equally to all in society, whether they be in the government or the masses, the richest or the poorest. This turned the world upside down.

2. EQUALITY: All men are created equal. This idea is perhaps the most controversial of them all, because the Founding Fathers fell so short of its ideal in practice. But, the Founding Fathers were the very first to pronounce that a nation should be dedicated to this belief. It is based on the belief that the Creator (Nature and Nature’s God) created all people, and therefore we are all equal in His eyes and under our law. Until 1776, no government was established on equality or even declared it should be so. Instead, inequality was the key historical reality and belief of the day. A privileged few hoarded over subjects. It was done as a matter of tradition and codified into law. We have fallen short in our reality, but we were the first to commit our nation to equality.

3. UNALIENABLE RIGHTS: We are used to thinking we have rights that the government must respect, but this was revolutionary in 1776. In fact, the People were “subjects” and had "privileges" which means that the government lorded over the People and the People could only do what was permitted by the government. A right means the People do not have to seek permission from the government. Moreover, “unalienable” means that the rights cannot be taken away, they are born within each person and can never be taken away by the government. Today, too many people act like their rights come from the government, and they can ask for permission to do things. Not so. Exactly the opposite is true. It is the government that is answerable to the American people. No other society in human history has rested on the foundation of unalienable rights.

4. SOCIAL COMPACT: The idea of Social Compact is that the People have come together and created a government to protect their unalienable rights. If we don’t have a government, we have the natural right to defend ourselves, but without a police force, we have to resort to vigilante justice. By allowing the government to create a police force, fire department, border patrol, and military, we have given up some of our unalienable rights to self-defend and agree to abide by the government. This means that the government rests on the consent of the People and only acts justly with that consent. Before 1776, likely no government believed in a true Social Compact, they usually took power by force and violence, and coerced its subjects to follow its dictate.

5. LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Because the government is formed to protect our unalienable rights, the just limit of its power is to protect those rights and some ancillary powers. To ensure that the government remains free and just, we limit its power and authority. In most of human history, governments were developed with the opposite belief that they were unlimited unless they carved out some privileges to their subjects.

6. REFORM AND REVOLUTION: If a government becomes unjust and violates unalienable rights, we have the right to reform or even abolish it. That is, after all, the whole point of the Declaration of Independence. If reform failed, and the government undertook a long train of abuses with the intention to assert an absolute despotism on the People, then the People have the right – in fact the duty – to overthrow the government and start anew. We are a revolutionary people and had no intention of giving away the rights we enjoyed.

COMMON SENSE

(1776)

And while it likely had little effect on the actual writing of the Declaration of Independence, "Common Sense" forced the issue on the streets, making the colonists see that a grave issue was upon them and that a public discussion was direly needed. Once it initiated debate, the article offered a solution for Americans who were disgusted and alarmed at the presence of tyranny in their new land, and it was passed around and read aloud often, bolstering enthusiasm for independence and encouraging recruitment for the Continental Army. ("Common Sense" is referred to by one historian as "the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era.")

Published in 1776, Common Sense challenged the authority of the British government and the royal monarchy. “Common Sense” was written in a way and in plain language, an unadorned style, forgoing philosophical ponderings and Latin terms speaking to the common people of America. It is worded in a way that forced the reader to make an immediate choice, many of whom were generally still undecided, a cogent argument for full-scale revolt and freedom from British rule or to remain under British rule. Within just a few months, the piece sold more than 500,000 copies. "Common Sense" presents as its chief option a distinctly American political identity and, more so than any other single publication, paved the way for the Declaration of Independence, which was unanimously ratified on July 4, 1776.

"Common Sense" was the first work to openly ask for independence from Great Britain. Paine championed the cause of independence from Britain by advocating for a democratic government. He critiqued  monarchy, and emphasized individual rights.

He was an advocate for independence. Paine urged the American colonies to declare independence from British rule, arguing that it was both a natural and necessary step. He contended that the colonies had evolved beyond the need for British governance and that their future prosperity relied on self-rule.

He argued that a monarchy is an unjust system. Paine spoke against the legitimacy of hereditary institutions established solely to protect citizens from each other’s vices. He believed that government effectiveness should be judged by its ability to safeguard the rights of individuals, emphasizing that a government must be representative and responsive to people’s needs.

Common Sense promoted Republican ideals calling for a Democratic Republic. It proposed forming a representative democracy where the common people would have the power to govern themselves, as opposed to a system that favored monarchy and aristocracy. Paine’s vision was for a government that derived its authority from the consent of the governed.

It gave a vision of American exceptionalism. Paine asserted that the colonies had the potential for a new nation and that America had a unique opportunity to create a society based on liberty and equality. He encouraged the colonists to seize the moment to establish a government that truly reflected their values and aspirations.

Common Sense stressed that the moment for action was now. Paine argued against procrastination in declaring independence, stating that delaying action would only allow for further oppression and hinder them.

THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERERATION

(1781 - 1789)

The Articles of Confederation served as the first constitution of the United States from 1781 to 1789, establishing a weak central government that ultimately led to its replacement by the U.S. Constitution.

Historical Context

The Articles of Confederation were drafted during the American Revolution, with the aim of unifying the thirteen colonies against British rule. They were adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15,1777 and ratified by all states by March 1, 1781.The Articles were designed to preserve the independence and sovereignty of each state while creating a loose confederation for mutual defense and cooperation.

Key Features

1. Structure

   The Articles established a unicameral legislature known as the Congress of Confederation, where each state has one vote. Major decisions required the approval of nine out of thirteen states.

2. Powers Granted

   Congress was given the authority to conduct foreign affairs, declare war, maintained armed forces, and manage relations with Native Americans. However, it lacked the power to levy taxes or regulate commerce, relying instead on voluntary contributions from the states.

3. Sovereignty of States

   Each state retained its sovereignty and independence, with the Articles explicitly stating that any powers not delegated to the national government remained with the states.

Strengths and Accomplishments

Despite its weaknesses, the Articles of Confederation had some successes including:

1. Land Ordinances - The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 established a framework for governing the Northwest Territory and set a precedent for future statehood.

2. Diplomatic Relations - The Articles allowed the new nation to conduct diplomacy and negotiate treaties, which were crucial during the Revolutionary War.

Weaknesses and Failures

The Articles of Confederation ultimately proved ineffective due to several key weaknesses:

1. Lack of Central Authority - The inability to enforce laws or collect taxes led to financial instability and a lack of military readiness.

2. Interstate Disputes - The articles did not provide a mechanism for resolving disputes between states, leading to conflicts and economic difficulties.

3. Shay's Rebellion - This uprising in 1786 highlighted the weaknesses of the federal government and the need for a stronger national framework, prompting the Constitutional Convention or 1787

Conclusion

The Articles of Confederation were a significant step in the formation of the United States, providing valuable lessons in governance. However, their limitations led to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, which established a stronger federal government capable of addressing the challenges faced by the new nation.

THE FEDERALIST PAPERS

(1787-1788)

The Federalist, commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers, is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," in various New York state newspapers of the time.

The Federalist Papers were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. For this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers were published primarily in two New York state newspapers: The New York Packet and The Independent Journal. They were reprinted in other newspapers in New York state and in several cities in other states. A bound edition, with revisions and corrections by Hamilton, was published in 1788 by printers J. and A. McLean. An edition published by printer Jacob Gideon in 1818, with revisions and corrections by Madison, was the first to identify each essay by its author's name. Because of its publishing history, the assignment of authorship, numbering, and exact wording may vary with different editions of The Federalist.

The Federalist Papers are considered a key resource for understanding the intentions of the Founding Fathers and the principles of American government. While all 85 essays have stood the test of time, there are several that are more relevant in today's era than the rest. The 10 most important Federalists Papers are generally considered to be Federalist 10, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 51, 68, 70, and 78.

Summary and Importance of Federalist 10

Of all the Federalist Papers, essay No. 10 is one of the most famous. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison delivered a well-reasoned argument as to why the constitution was uniquely capable of preventing the United States' domination of factions and special interest groups.

Madison reasoned that it is simple human nature to separate into factions. There inevitably will be different opinions concerning government, religion, liberty, etc. that arise and that citizens will form factions over. Madison was not concerned with the potential of small factions ruling the nation (perhaps underestimating the power and influence of the small faction of the wealthy). Instead, he was concerned about majority factions that could "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. Madison greatly feared the "tyranny of the majority." He reasoned the new Constitution would be able to help prevent "tyranny of the majority." The new government would be a republic with power shared between states and national government. The varying levels of government, shared power, direct and indirect elections would prove to be a buffer against such a threat. In addition, Madison predicted the republic of the United States would grow to be even larger. A large republic would thus have an even wider array of geographic, religious, social, and economic interests, making it even less likely for a true majority faction to dominate. Where there is no safeguard against the powers of factions or special interest groups, Madison argued the Constitution was uniquely capable of safeguarding American liberties from majority factions.

Summary and Importance of Federalist 39

In Federalist No 39, James Madison penned a defense of the republican form of government, first describing what qualified as a republic, then pronouncing the Constitution as a Federal rather than a national form of government.

Madison firmly rejected the idea that the new Constitution was not republican in nature. He first defined what makes a government republican, noting two main points:

1. A government which derives all its power directly or indirectly from the great body of the people.

2. Administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited time period, or during good behavior.

He also lambasted the aristocratic classes of wealthy elite members of society who sought to bend government in their favor: "It is ESSENTAIL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it: otherwise, a handful of tyrannical nobles..." After noting how the new Constitution checks the boxes of how it forms a a republican government, Madison next addressed the idea that individual states would give up their identities as part of a new government. Anti-Federalists argued that the new Constitution would be a national form of government, rather than a federal government. This was a major concern as under a national government, states became subordinate to the central government and over time a consolidation of state would occur. Madison rejected this idea, arguing that each state would maintain its own sovereignty and states could unanimously consent of their own volition to give central government power. "Each state, in ratifying the Constitution, is considering as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act." He ultimately deduced that the new Constitution was unique in that it was "neither wholly national nor wholly federal," which best suited the Unted States.

Federalist 41

Federalist 41 is the first of six essays on the difficulty of powers and federalism. This difficulty, in turn, can be divided into two parts around the consideration of two questions. The first difficulty of powers and federalism is this: has any unnecessary and improper power been granted to the general government? This is covered in Federalist 41-44. The answer is "no."

Summary and Importance of Federalist 41

Federalist 41 breaks federal power into two broad categories:

1. Those related to national defense, and

2. Those that promotes peace and stability within the country.

Madison defends the need for a strong military, explaining that the government must be able to defend against foreign threats and internal unrest and defends the powers granted to the national government in the proposed Constitution. He structures the argument into two broad categories:

1. The sum of the powers vested in government.

2. The particular structure of the government.

In this paper, he focuses on the first category and asked whether the "general" of national government has been granted too much power. He argues that it has not. In particular, Madison defends the powers granted to Congress to declare was, grant letters of marque, provide armies and fleets, regulated the militia, raise taxes and borrow money.

There is a central tension between liberty and strong government. On the one hand, liberty cannot long survive without a strong government to protect it from foreign aggression or domestic turmoil. On the other hand, a strong government has the power to not only protect the people but to oppress them as well. Madison and others argue, however, that the solution to this dilemma is to establish a strong government that is accountable to the people and subject to checks and balances to ensure it does not violate the rights of the people.

Madison's essential goal in this paper was to address the concern that the federal government would have too much authority under the proposed constitution. What is striking about Madison's argument is that, rather than offer a glowing assessment of the virtues of a strong national government, he defends the central authority outlined in the Constitution as a necessary evil. He argues that granting any government with any degree of power risks the government of abusing that power. However, the alternative of a weak and ineffectual government is simply not an option. Without a strong government, America cannot defend itself from foreign aggression, guarantee the rule of law, or raise revenue to address the national problems that transcend state boundaries.

Madison based his argument on the principle that all forms of government are imperfect: "in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness, involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused." That is, governments must be given power in order to govern. However, by giving governments power, the people run the risk of that power being abused by the government. He illustrated this principle with reference to standing armies. He admits they are dangerous to liberty, but nevertheless necessary to defend against foreign aggression. The power to raise armies and revenue cannot be limited because future threats and needs cannot be predicted. If Congress cannot raise armies in times of crisis, then Americans will fall prey to foreign invaders or internal disruptions. It is better to endure the risk of having a standing army than to be totally defenseless against hostile forces. However, he reminds his readers that Congressional authority only extends to certain, enumerated powers.

Summary and Importance of Federalist 42

Madison emphasizes the need for a unified voice in international relations and appeals to the broader geopolitical realities of the late 18th century, an era that has seen fragmented states easily manipulated by European powers still active in North America. Madison strengthened his case that without cohesive foreign policy authority, the United States risked both its sovereignty and its global standing.

Madison explains why the Constitution expands the powers of the federal government, particularly in areas related to foreign policy, commerce, and national unity, He contends that the Articles of Confederation left the country weak by failing to grant Congress the authority to regulate trade, enforce treaties, or prevent conflicts between states. The new Constitution corrects these flaws by giving the federal government control over foreign relations, ensuring that the nation speaks with one voice in diplomacy and can uphold international agreements.

Madison also defends the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce, explaining that without a uniform system, states would impose unfair trade restrictions on each other, leading to economic instability. He further addresses concerns over national security by highlighting the need for a consistent policy on crimes like counterfeiting and piracy. Madison argues that these powers are necessary to create a functioning, unified nation and prevent the chaos that existed under the Articles of Confederation.

Summary and Importance of Federalist 43

This essay examines the fourth class of federal power: "certain miscellaneous objects of general utility." Nine miscellaneous clauses are covered.

Most attention if given to the sixth clause, namely, the republican guarantee clause. The main issues here are a.) "to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchial innovation," and b.) to protect the principle of majority rule against the actions of a minority of "adventurers."

Madison then adds: "I take no notice of un unhappy species of population abounding in some of the states, who during the calm of regular government are sunk below the level of men, but who, in the tempestuous scenes of civil violence, may emerge into the human character and give a superiority of strength to any party with which they may associate themselves."

The ninth and last clause covered is Article VII. This clause provides for ratification of the Constitution by nine of thirteen specially called conventions. Madison asks: how can the Articles be "superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it?" The answer, anticipated in Federalist 40 is "the great principles of self-preservation: to the transcendent law of nature and nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of the society are the objects at which all political institutions aim and to which all institutions must be sacrificed."

Madison's defense of a national capital directly responds to concerns raised during the Constitutional Convention about the vulnerability of the federal government when dependent on a single state for its operations. The memory of the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, when unpaid Continental Army soldiers surrounded Congress in Philadelphia and the state government refused to intervene, showed the dangers in relying on state-controlled jurisdictions. The incident demonstrated the need for a neutral, federally controlled district where the national government could operate independently of local pressures.

James Madison outlines several additional powers granted to the federal government by the constitution and explains why they are necessary for a stable and effective nation. He defends Congress's authority to establish a national capital, claiming that the federal government must not depend on any single state for its operations. He also justifies the process for admitting new states, ensuring fairness while preventing existing from being divided without their consent. Madison discusses the importance of protecting intellectual rights, which encourages innovation and progress, and explains that the federal government must have the power to punish crimes such as treason and violations of international law.

Madison also defends the constitution amendment process, which allows elected leaders to make changes to the Constitution while insuring stability. Finally, he argues that the Constitutions authority comes from the people, making it legitimate even though it replaces the Articles of Confederation. Madison presents these provisions as necessary for creating a strong, just, and adaptable government.

Summary and Importance of Federalist 44

This essay examines the fifth and sixth classes of power: "restraint of the States from certain injurious acts," and "provisions for giving due efficacy to these powers." The latter reveals the necessary and proper clause. "Few parts of the Constitution have been assailed with more importance than this; yet on a fair investigation of it, has been elsewhere shown, no part can appear more completely vulnerable. Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter." He examines and rejects, the four choices, other than the one stated in Article 1, Section 8, clause 18, that were available to the convention: a.) adopt the expressly delegated language of the Articles, b.) list a "positive enumeration of the powers" attached to the necessary and proper clause, c.) list a "negative enumeration" of the powers not attached, and d.) remain "altogether silent on the subject, leaving these necessary and proper powers to construction and inference."

All the clause is saying is that "wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included." And if Congress should abuse the power? "The people...can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annual the acts of the usurpers."

Summary and Importance of Federalist 51

Federalist No. 51 is one of the more well-known essays of the collections. James Madison wrote this essay and dove into the systems of "checks and balances" within the new government.

The Constitution splits the United States Government into three branches: executive, legislative and the judicial. A single person rules the Executive branch, the President, who is elected via the Electoral College. The legislative branch consists of two bodies: the Senate and the House of Representatives. State legislatures were to elect members of the Senate, and each state received two senators regardless of state size. Instead, the House of Representatives members were to be elected via direct democracy and states were assigned members proportional to size. The President reserved the right to nominate members of the judicial branch, though the nominations needed to be confirmed by the Senate. Judiciary members received life terms so that the President who appointed them had less influence over their actions, as well as the Senators that confirmed them.

Federalist 51 went on to describe how the system of checks and balances would preserve liberty in the United States. By giving express powers to different branches, it served as a "check on the other branches' power. If one branch were to become too powerful, American liberties could be in jeopardy. A balance of power between the three branches of government would help to preserve the liberties and freedoms fought for in the revolution.

Summary and Importance of Federalist 68

In Federalist No.68, Alexander Hamilton provided a defense for the method of electing the President of the United States, The Electoral College.

There were many differing proposals to select the member(s) of the Executive branch at the Constitutional Convention. Some proposed election by direct democracy, others by state legislatures. and still others by Congress. In addition, there were differing plans as to just how many executives there should be, with proposals ranging from one to as many as three. Hamilton himself favored only one executive; however, he believed that the executive should hold office for life instead of having terms. These differing proposals resulted in a compromise to elect the President, the Electoral College. In Federalist No. 68, Hamilton outlined the thoughts behind the idea. He claimed that the electors would be "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station," which would help ensure the President was someone worthy of the title. Since the electors could not hold political office, they would be outside politics in a "detached situation" and aid in the avoidance of corruption in the election process. In essence, the framers designed the Electoral College as an alternative to direct election by citizens. It was also considered as a compromise for slave holding states. Madison himself admitted direct election would have been preferable in his notes during the constitutional Convention: "The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself." However, he later quipped: There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than Southern states, and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The situation of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections". Based on Madison's notes, the Electoral sprung as a compromise for the less populous Southern states (since enslaved people do not count as citizens. Given the dubious nature of the beginnings of the Electoral College, it is no wonder that many Americans believe it is one of the more archaic and unnecessary aspects of the U.S. Constitution.

Summary and Importance of Federalist 70

There is an idea, which is not without its advocates, that a vigorous Executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government. The enlightened well-wishers of this species of government must at least hope that the supposition is destitute of foundation; since they can never admit its truth, without at the same time admitting the condemnation of their own principles. Energy in the Executive is a leading character in definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice.; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy ...

There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or examples on his head. Another feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.

Taking it for granted, therefore, that all men of sense will agree on the necessity of an energetic Executive, it will only remain to inspire, what are the ingredients which constitute this energy? How far can they be combined with those other ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense? And how far does this combination characterize the plan which has been reported by the convention?

The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; second, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers.

The ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense are, first, a due dependence on the people, secondly, a due responsibility.

Those politicians and statesmen who have been most widely celebrated for the soundness of their principles and for the justice of their views, have declared in favor of a single Executive and a numerous legislature. They have with great propriety, considered energy as the most necessary qualification of the former, and have regarded this as most applicable to power in a single hand, while they have, with equal propriety, considered the latter as best adopted to deliberation and wisdom, and best calculated to conciliate the confidence ot the people and to secure their privileges and interests.

That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.

This unity may be destroyed in two ways: either by vesting the power to two or more magistrates of equal dignity and authority; or by vesting it ostensibly in one man, subject, in whole or in part to, the control and cooperation of others, in the capacity of counsellors to him ... They are both liable, if not equal, to similar objections, and may in most lights be examined in conjunction ...

Whenever two or more persons are engaged in any common enterprise or pursuit, there is always a danger of difference of opinion. If it be a public trust or office, in which they are clothed in equal dignity and authority, there is a peculiar danger of personal emulation and even animosity. From either, or especially from all these causes, the most bitter dissentions are apt to spring. Whenever these happen, they lessen the respectability, weaken the authority, and distract the plans and operation of those whom they divide ... And what is still worse, they might split the community into the most violent and irreconcilable factions, adhering differently to the different individuals who composed the magistracy.

Upon the principles of a free government, inconveniences from the source just mentioned must necessarily be submitted to in the formation of the legislature; but it is unnecessary, and therefore unwise, to introduce them to the constitution of the Executive. It is here too that they may be most pernicious. In the legislature, promptness of decision is often an evil rather than a benefit. The differences of opinion, and the jarring of parties in that department of the government, though they may sometimes obstruct salutary plans, yet often promote deliberation and circumspection, and serve to check excesses in the majority. When a resolution too is once taken, the opposition must be at an end. That resolution is a law, and resistance to it is punishable. But no favorable circumstances palliate or atone for the disadvantages of dissension in the executive department ...

But one of the weightiest objectives to a plurality in the Executive, and which lies as much against the last as the first plan, is that it tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility. Responsibility is of two kinds: censure and punishment. The first is the more important of the two, especially in an elective office. Man, in public trust, will more often act in such a manner as to render him unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in a manner as to make him obnoxious to legal punishment. But the multiplication of the Executive adds to the difficulty of detection in either case. It often becomes impossible, amidst mutual accusations, to determine on whom to blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures, ought really to fall ...

It is evident from these considerations, that the plurality of the Executive needs to deprive the people of the two greatest securities they can have for the faithful exercise of any delegated power, first, the restraints of public opinion, which lose the efficacy, as well on account of the division of the censure attendant on bad measures among a number, as on account of the uncertainty on whom it ought to fall; and secondly, the opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness the misconduct of the persons they trust, in order either to their removal from office or to their actual punishment incases which admit of it ...

"(I)n a republic, where every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office the reason which in the British Constitution dictates the propriety of a council, not only ceases to apply, but turns against the institution. In the monarchy of Great Britian, it furnishes a substitute for the prohibited responsibility for the chief magistrate, which serves in some degree as a hostage to the national justice for his good behavior. In the American republic, it would serve to destroy, or would greatly diminish, the intended and necessary responsibility of the Chief Magistrate himself."

Summary and Importance of Federalist 78

Alexander Hamilton penned Federalist No.78 where he helped to explain the role of the judiciary branch of the new constitution.

Hamilton declared the judiciary as the weakest of the three branches. He wrote, "It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgement; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgements." This weakness justifies the permanency in office of federal judges, so that they can uphold public justice and security without fear of reprisal from the other branches. He also was quick to note that federal judges cannot be removed so long a they display "good behavior." In Federalist 78 Hamilton argued strongly for the process of judicial review. Judicial review is the process where federal judges can determine whether or not a statute of law is in conflict with the Constitution, the "fundamental law." He wrote: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. The Constitution did not expressly give the judiciary the power of judicial review; these were merely Hamiltons thoughts and interpretations of what the document could entail. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall affirmed the process of judicial review in perhaps the most important case in US History: Marbury v. Madison (1803). Despite fierce backlash, all thirteen states eventually ratified the new Constitution. Interestingly, Article VII of the Constitution stipulated that only nine of the thirteen states needed to ratify the document for it to go into effect for the participating states. Only eleven states had ratified the Constitution by the first election in 1788, that saw George Washington chosen to lead the nation. North Carolina and Rhode Island had not ratified the Constitution yet and thus were not technically part of the new government. The Constitution faced numerous challenges in the early days of the nation's history. The founders could not possibly have foreseen all the challenges facing the United States but did their best to create a flexible document that would be interpreted in various ways. Many early court cases such as Marbury v. Madison, Fletcher v Peck, McCulloch v Maryland, and Gibbons v. Ogden, among others, helped to solidify constitutional law and clarify the Constitution's intent.