ipl-logo

Summary Of The Federalist Paper No. 84

867 Words4 Pages

In the Federalist Paper No. 84, author Alexander Hamilton, under the pseudonym Publius, argues against the need for a bill of rights to be explicitly included in a well-designed Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, in the course of the foregoing review of the Constitution, has endeavored to answer most of the objections raised against it. One such objection was raised against the Constitution due to its lack of a bill of rights. Hamilton countered this objection by asserting that because the Constitution had adopted the full common and statute law of Great Britain, rights did not have to be explicitly written or stated in a bill of rights because they were already equally secured. Thus, he believed that the very existence of a bill of rights would …show more content…

Hamilton’s opinions on including a bill of rights were controversial. Even James Madison, a co-writer of the Federalist Papers, believed that a bill of rights was necessary to support an unshakeable republic. Hamilton tried to use the argument that a bill of rights originated from stipulations between kings and their subjects. He explained that according to their primitive significance, they had no application to constitutions that were based on the power of the people. He used documents such as the Magna Carta from King John and the Petition of Right assented by King Charles I to back up his points. In my opinion, even though he had evidence, his argument was deeply flawed. Although, yes, bills of rights did in fact originate from monarchies, they still have great use in a constitution based on the power of the people. The people alone cannot guarantee that their will and rights will be recognized and respected by the …show more content…

The English Bill of Rights 1689 had banned the imposition of taxes without approval from Parliament. Because of this, the colonists were able to claim that their right to taxation with representation was being infringed on. They rebelled and punished the government of Great Britain successfully because they could say with certainty that their rights had been infringed upon by Britain because the English Bill of Rights existed. A bill of rights also serves other uses, such as protecting the country from abuse of excessive federal power. It sets rules for due process of laws and reserves all power not already given to the federal government to the state government. Hamilton missed the mark with his arguments and also failed to have the foresight needed to recognize the damage that would be caused by not accounting for the changing future of the United States. The Bill of Rights, as we know it today, is vital to our everyday lives. We now can recognize that history has shown that governments have attempted to violate the rights of the people despite having a bill of

Show More
Related
353 Words | 2 Pages

Anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and Mercy Otis Warren both opposed the ratification of the United States Constitution because they believed the strong national government the document created would have the power to take away the rights of the people. Patrick Henry’s speech at the Virginia ratifying convention in June 1788 and Mercy Otis Warren’s pamphlet, “Observations on the New Constitution,” both explain their authors’ opposition to the new Constitution for a stronger national government. In his speech Henry spoke of the lack of security for the people’s rights under the Constitution. Because of that, he said, the new Constitution should be considered as a source of anxiety and fear. The people needed to be more protective of their rights,

Read More
136 Words | 1 Pages

In 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers were written and published in various newspapers in the state of New York intended to encourage Yorkers to vote in ratifying the proposed Constitution. The famous papers consist of eighty-five essays authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. In Federalist Paper No. 17, Alexander Hamilton explicitly addresses the fear that the proposed Constitution would lead to oppression at the hands of an “autocratic” national government. Hamilton argues that even if the national government were to try and seize the power of the states, it would not be simple to do. The main reason Hamilton gives that the States rights would be reserved is because these government have a greater influence over

Read More
1157 Words | 5 Pages

In Massachusetts, the Anti-Federalists, led by James Madison, argued that the Bill of Rights was necessary to protect people rights from the government because the government might get too powerful and hurt people’s rights and freedom. They had this fear because they suffered from the British tyranny and worried that the highly centralized government would make the miserable history happen again. Nevertheless, in favor of the government, the Federalists insisted that the Bill of Rights were unnecessary because the Constitution already limited the power of government, so it would not get too powerful. Also, they worried that people might forget to list certain rights in the Bill of Rights, so if later they were fighting for their rights that were not written in the document, the government might use it against them. Eventually, a compromise was made through a vote in Massachusetts; Anti-Federalists agreed to ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights, but they should also submit amendments for the Congress to consider adding the Bill of Rights.

Read More
827 Words | 4 Pages

Hence Federalists came up with the Bill of Rights as a way to get the Constitution ratified and for people to really see a needed change. The Bill Of Rights which lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, lead the Anti-Federalists to be less fearful of the new Constitution . This guaranteed that the people would still remain to have rights, but the strong central government that the country needed would have to be approved. The 1804 Map of the nation shows that even after the ratification of the United States Constitution there still continued to be “commotion” and dispute in the country.(Document 8) George Washington stated that the people should have a say in the nation and government and everything should not be left to the government to decide.(Document 3) Although George Washington was a Federalist many believed he showed a point of view that seemed to be Anti-Federalists. Many believed that The Bill of Rights needed to be changed and modified and a new document’s time to come into place.

Read More
878 Words | 4 Pages

The campaign for the Constitution was a long one and during it Hamilton, along with John Jay and James Madison, took up the pseudonym “Publius” and wrote essays to newspapers across the nation, encouraging the public to vote in favor of ratifying the Constitution. In all, there were eighty-five essays that came to be known as “The Federalist Papers.” John Jay wrote two, Madison wrote thirty-two, and Hamilton wrote all of the remaining fifty-one. The most well known essay of the collection was Federalist No. 84, written by Hamilton, which first proposed the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution in ensure the rights of the states were honored (Foner Web; Witten Web; Hamilton Print). After the Constitution was ratified in 1787 and George Washington was elected as President in 1789, Hamilton was appointed as his Secretary of the Treasury, making him the first to hold the position.

Read More
1339 Words | 6 Pages

This statement was enhanced by the English Bill of Rights, which was passed in 1689. “Exactly 100 prior, 1689, Parliament brought an end to a time of great turmoil in England–the Glorious Revolution–with the English Bill of Rights” (Eskridge). Therefore, the colonies were living to their own form of government and stripping away the basic rights of the framed and accused

Read More
239 Words | 1 Pages

The arguments between the Federalist and Massachusetts Anti-Federalist caused by Federalist paper #84 would have been very difficult to resolve without modifications to the items that were to be included in the Constitution like the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights were considered to be relevant and deleterious to the Constitution by Federalist Alexander Hamilton, who stated in the essay Federalist Paper #84 that the Bill of Rights is “...not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.” In addition Hamilton pointed out that many natural rights, like the right to redress grievances, were already implied in the body of the Constitution, therefore no further listing was necessary. However, Anti-Federalist counteracted

Read More
978 Words | 4 Pages

The Federalist No. 10” is a persuasive argument written by James Madison in an attempt to ratify the Constitution. He wrote a series of documents called the Federalist Papers under a pseudonym to convince others to approve of the Constitution. He says that factions are not good for America, neither is a pure democracy. Madison provides extensive arguments and remedies for the problems he is addressing. James Madison is attempting to ratify the Constitution by analyzing the way to deal with factions, comparing a republic to a democracy, and by comparing a small government to a large government.

Read More
187 Words | 1 Pages

In Document I they are taking out the Bill of Rights and putting that information elsewhere and enter information that doesn’t need to be in the Constitution. One of Thomas Jefferson's group leaders has sent a copy of his work and he noticed that he took out one part of information that needs to be in The Constitution. Without the Bill of Right the people will turn against their government. Thomas Jefferson said a complaint to his friend and wanted to know why he took out the Bill of Rights. With the Bill of Rights the people are under control because they accept what is written and why they look up to the Bill of Rights.

Read More
498 Words | 2 Pages

James Madison, founding father and fourth president of United States wrote the federalists paper number 10 in favor of the constitution. He believes that constitution is the only way to keep balance and control any problem this country faces. He uses faction as an example and talks about how it can cause problems but most importantly how to deal with the problems. He defines faction as groups of people who came together to promote their own interests and opinions. He said that these groups take advantage of the public and violate their rights.

Read More
1239 Words | 5 Pages

He argued that the American colonists had the right to govern themselves and that the British rule was tyrannical and unjust. He rejected the idea of a hereditary monarchy and claimed that government should be based on the consent of the governed. He also challenged the notion of divine right of kings and called for a representative government that would be accountable to the people. The writing of pamphlets by Paine as well as others, such as Samuel

Read More
308 Words | 2 Pages

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison contested the idea of the Constitution needing a Bill of Rights. They also stressed that it would cause a huge gap limiting the rights of people, instead of protecting the rights of

Read More
1375 Words | 6 Pages

They (in particular Federalist Paper No. 84) also argued against the need for the Bill of Right as being restrictive (Constitutionfacts.com,

Read More
445 Words | 2 Pages

The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government an excessive amount of power, and while not a Bill of Rights the folks would be in danger of oppression. Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights, that it might produce a "parchment barrier" that restricted the rights of the folks, as critical protective

Read More
816 Words | 4 Pages

He thought that the government would be given too much power. His thoughts on the injustices in the Constitution greatly influenced the making of the Bill of Rights. At the time, Federalists argued that the Constitution didn’t need a bill of rights, due to the fact that the people and states kept any powers not given to the federal government, but Anti-Federalists said that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. So when the Bill of Rights was made it listed prohibitions on governmental power and the rights that were granted to people. When the Bill of Rights was adopted into the Constitution it was became the fundamental rights of all citizens in 1791.

Read More

More about Summary Of The Federalist Paper No. 84

Open Document