The Federalist Papers: No. 84

In today's study I read one of the "Federalist Papers" a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. 75 of these were published in 1787 and 1788 by the "Independent Journal" and the "New York Packet". These essays were published addressing the problems that the so-called "Anti-Federalists" had with the yet-unratified constitution. The particular essay I read, No. 84, was written by Hamilton on certain objections raised towards the constitution by the anti-federalists. The three objections he addressed were as follows:

1. The constitution had no bill of rights (however it does today).
2. That the government proposed by the constitution was too strong, and that the states and counties farther away from the capitol would not have their interests met as well as those close or in the capitol.
3. That those who owed debts to the old government under the articles of confederation would cease to owe the new government.

Hamilton addressed these three objections as follows:

1. The constitution has no bill of rights because a bill of rights was not needed. The constitution itself had specific rights spelled out, such as the upholding of the writ of habeus-corpus, the prohibition of granting any titles of nobility, and others. Also, an addition of a bill would be potentially dangerous, because if a specific right is spelled out (Hamilton used freedom of the press as an example), it is denying government power that it did not have to begin with, thereby suggesting other hidden but unknown powers. Also, if a right, like freedom of the press is not defined well enough, it simply provides loopholes in the government that can be exploited.

2.Hamilton observed (and rightly so) that the same situation was happening in each state currently on a smaller scale. He also mentioned that the constitution provided for this "problem" with it's representative system, which was instituted for the sole purpose of equally representing the people of all the states.

3. Hamilton regarded this argument as absolutely ridiculous, a creation of the press, stating that "...it is a plain dictate of commmon sense...that 'STATES NEITHER LOSE ANY OF THEIR RIGHTS NOR ARE DISCHARGED FROM ANY OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS, BY A CHANGE IN THE FORM OF THEIR CIVIL GOVERNMENT.'"

I have read three or four of these federalist essays, and have found them to be excellent defenses for one of the greatest documents in American history (if only we could defend our constitution so well today). These essays were greatly responsible for the ratification and adoption of our constitution of the more anti-federalist states.

The federalist papers are an excellent resource for finding out the logic and reasoning behind our constitution. No. 84, and all the other essays can be found here.