The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton (books to read in your 20s .txt) 📕
Description
In early 1787, the Congress of the United States called a meeting of delegates from each state to try to fix what was wrong with the Articles of Confederation. The Articles had created an intentionally weak central government, and that weakness had brought the nation to a crisis in only a few years. Over the next several months, the delegates worked to produce the document that would become the U.S. Constitution.
When Congress released the proposed Constitution to the states for ratification in the fall of 1787, reaction was swift: in newspapers throughout each state, columnists were quick to condemn the radical reworking of the nation’s formative document. In New York State, a member of the convention decided to launch into the fray; he and two other men he recruited began writing their own anonymous series defending the proposed Constitution, each one signed “Publius.” They published seventy-seven articles in four different New York papers over the course of several months. When the articles were collected and published as a book early the following year, the authors added another eight articles. Although many at the time guessed the true identities of the authors, it would be a few years before the authors were confirmed to be Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, Hamilton and Madison both being delegates at the convention.
Although the articles’ influence on the Constitution’s ratification is debated—newspapers were largely local at the time, so few outside New York saw the articles—their influence on the interpretation of the Constitution within the judiciary is immense. They are a window not only into the structure and content of the document, but also the reasons for the structure and content, written by men who helped author the document. Consequently, they have been quoted almost 300 times in Supreme Court cases. They remain perhaps the best and clearest explanation of the document that is the cornerstone of the United States government.
Read free book «The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton (books to read in your 20s .txt) 📕» - read online or download for free at americanlibrarybooks.com
- Author: Alexander Hamilton
Read book online «The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton (books to read in your 20s .txt) 📕». Author - Alexander Hamilton
James Burgh’s Political Disquisitions. —Publius ↩
1st clause, 4th section, of the 1st article. —Publius ↩
Particularly in the Southern states and in this state. —Publius ↩
In that of New Jersey, also, the final judiciary authority is in a branch of the legislature. In New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, one branch of the legislature is the court for the trial of impeachments. —Publius ↩
See Cato, No. V. —Publius ↩
Article i, section 3, clause 1. —Publius ↩
Vide Federal Farmer. —Publius ↩
A writer in a Pennsylvania paper, under the signature of Tamony, has asserted that the king of Great Britain owes his prerogative as commander-in-chief to an annual mutiny bill. The truth is, on the contrary, that his prerogative, in this respect, is immemorial, and was only disputed, “contrary to all reason and precedent,” as Blackstone vol. i, page 262, expresses it, by the Long Parliament of Charles I; but by the statute the 13th of Charles II, chap. 6, it was declared to be in the king alone, for that the sole supreme government and command of the militia within his Majesty’s realms and dominions, and of all forces by sea and land, and of all forts and places of strength, ever was and is the undoubted right of his Majesty and his royal predecessors, kings and queens of England, and that both or either house of Parliament cannot nor ought to pretend to the same. —Publius ↩
Vide Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. i, p. 257. —Publius ↩
Candor, however, demands an acknowledgment that I do not think the claim of the governor to a right of nomination well founded. Yet it is always justifiable to reason from the practice of a government, till its propriety has been constitutionally questioned. And independent of this claim, when we take into view the other considerations, and pursue them through all their consequences, we shall be inclined to draw much the same conclusion. —Publius ↩
New York has no council except for the single purpose of appointing to offices; New Jersey has a council whom the governor may consult. But I think, from the terms of the constitution, their resolutions do not bind him. —Publius ↩
De Lolme. —Publius ↩
Ten. —Publius ↩
This was the case with respect to Mr. Fox’s India bill, which was carried in the House of Commons, and rejected in the House of Lords, to the entire satisfaction, as it is said, of the people. —Publius ↩
Mr. Abraham Yates, a warm opponent of the plan of the convention is of this number. —Publius ↩
In the revised text: “The former, by increasing the difficulty of resolutions disagreeable to the minority.” ↩
The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: “Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.” Spirit of Laws, vol. i, page 186. —Publius ↩
Spirit of Laws, vol. i, page 181. —Publius ↩
Vide “Protest of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania,” Luther Martin’s speech, etc. —Publius ↩
Vide Constitution of Massachusetts, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 13. —Publius ↩
Article 3, Sec. 1. —Publius ↩
This power has been absurdly represented as intended to abolish all the county courts in the several states, which are commonly called inferior courts. But the expressions of the Constitution are, to constitute “tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court”; and the evident design of the provision is to enable the institution of local courts, subordinate to the Supreme, either in states or larger districts. It is ridiculous to imagine that county courts were in contemplation. —Publius ↩
This word is composed of jus and dictio, juris dictio or a speaking and pronouncing of the law. —Publius ↩
I hold that the states will have concurrent jurisdiction with the subordinate federal judicatories, in many cases of federal cognizance, as will be explained in my next paper. —Publius ↩
No. XXXI. —Publius ↩
Sec. 8, Art. 1. —Publius ↩
The last sentence (“But that there …”) is omitted in the revised text. ↩
The last part of this sentence (“and will be in no degree …”) is omitted in the revised text. ↩
It has been erroneously insinuated with regard to the court of chancery, that this court generally tries disputed facts by a jury. The truth is, that references to a jury in that court rarely happen, and are in no case necessary but where the validity of a devise of land comes into question. —Publius ↩
It is true that the principles by which that relief is governed are now reduced to a regular system; but it is not the less true that they are in the main applicable to special circumstances, which form exceptions to general rules. —Publius ↩
Vide No. LXXXI, in which the supposition of its being abolished by the appellate jurisdiction in matters of fact being vested in the Supreme Court, is examined and refuted. —Publius ↩
Vide Blackstone’s Commentaries, vol. 1, p. 136. —Publius ↩
Blackstone’s Commentaries, vol. 4, p. 438. —Publius ↩
To show that there is a power in the Constitution by which the liberty of the press may be affected, recourse has been had to the power
Comments (0)