Transcripts For CSPAN Books 20240703

In partnership with the library of congress, cspan brings you books that shaped america. We explore key works of literature that had a profound effect on the country. The federalist from 1788, essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and john j. In 1787 the newly drafted constitution was sent to the states for ratification. Two camps emerge, the federalists and the antifederalist. Starting in october 1787, essays published under the pen name publius began appearing in newspapers, urge and the ratification of the constitution. Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and john jay. Theory were later combined into a book called the federalists. Because of the authors addressed a wide range of political issues including conflict between the states, taxation and foreign influence, they are still considered vital documents today for understanding the original intent of the constitution. The federalist papers continued to have an impact on the issues of contemporary america. Welcome to books that shaped america, our cspan series that looks at how books have influenced who we are today. In partnership with the library of congress, this 10 week series looks at different eras, topics and viewpoints. We are glad you are joining us for this walkthrough history. Tonight, our focus is the federalist, compilation of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and john jay. Essays known today as the federalist papers. Our guest this evening is judge Gregory Maddox and colleen sheehan, politics professor at Arizona State university. Professor sheehan, back in 1787, what were the purposes of the federalist papers . The federalist papers as it is commonly called, was the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was born in the caribbean on a Little Island called me this. Hamilton came to the United States when he was a teenager, went to kings college, now columbia and attended the Constitutional Convention. But he was outvoted there by the other two new yorkers who attended. New york is going to be a very important state for the new constitution. Hamilton put together a team to push for the ratification of the constitution and he enlisted the support of john jay lal James Madison to work to persuade the voters of new york to ratify the constitution. Judge, our partner in this endeavor, the library of congress on its website describes the federalist papers the most significant american contribution to political thought in our history. Do you agree . I think it is true. There were a number of unique contributions to Political Science that came out of the federalists. In discussing the nature of government, madison said the government had to accomplish two things. It had to be able to control itself. The three things he pointed out were essentially new things separation of powers, but he also focused on the checks and balances, where each house would check the other house, each branch of government would check the other branch. Perhaps the most original contribution was federalism, the idea they having two governments would do more to preserve liberty than just having one government. Lets range from the federalistber one. This is Alexander Hamilton. After an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsistent federal government, you are call un to delibera othe new constitution for the United States of america. E subject speaks its own importance. Comprehended in its consequences nothing less then the existence of that union. What was Alexander Hamilton saying there . That is the opening salvo of the federalist. It goes on to say it seems to have been reserved to the people of the country to decide the important question whether society is a minor capable of establishing Good Government or whether they are forever destined on accident and force. Think about that. What he is saying essentially is free government has never worked. In the history of the world, there are momentary rains of glory that break forth from the gloom and while they dazzle us with fleeting brilliance, popular government is a history of failure. We have the chance hamilton is saying to do it right. To show that all people is really capable of governing themselves. That is what the american project was about. The federalist papers starts out by saying so. Judge, structuring society in a sense. Yes, i think in your quote, one that thing that comes across is sounds like the articles of confederation was a disasters. In many ways that was an overstate. If you read the federalist, they were quite respectful despite seeing its flaws. Under the artif confedatn, congress kept the union together. It won a war, and negotiated a favorable peace treaty, it figured out what to do about the western lands. But there were problems and most of what he talks about is how to improve the situation. Not that everything was wrong, but that there were specific problems that might make this a flash in the pan if they do not get fixed. How different was the constitution approved in 1787 to the articles of confederation . Some of the major problems with the articles of confederation was congress did not have the powers to govern. It could not raise taxes directly. It cannot raise an army by itself directly. It could pass laws, but had no way to enforce the laws. A had no judiciary. Without the ability to raise taxes, it could not successfully borrow money. Another problem was that because each state had one vote, it was not a very fair system because some states were larger. The constitution attempted to address all of those problems by giving congress the powers the directors thought were necessary. Why were these papers published under publius . Publius is the pen name they chose. Publius valerius publicola was a roman aristocrat who was known to be in favor of republicanism. A man of the people. They chose that name. It was common in the 18th century to he a pseudonym. It is not from whom the advice comes that is the most important thing, but whether the advice it be good. The papers are put out there. Nobody except probably one person knew who Publius Valerius publicola was. Otherwise it is kept a secret for some time. The one person who was told is the man whom everybody respects the most. And that is washington. Judge, do you invoke the federalist papers today in your work at the u. S. Court of appeals for the armed forces . I have not had much occasion. The federalist papers are a source of evidence of the original meaning of the constitution. But they are not the source where you can look up a sentence and that decides a legal issue. They are a collection of the arguments that were made by supporters of the constitution that addressed key themes such as when we say congress has powers and can do everything necessary to carry out those powers, what we mean by that, it is the big ideas i think in the federalist papers. Whether or not you cite them in a particular case does not mean the big ideas are not still important. Lets give you a sense of wh america was like in 1787. The population was close to 4 million. Washington became the president in 1789. There were 11 states admitted to the union by the end of 1789. The economy was based mostly on farming. The federalist papers themselves, 85 essays published in 1787 and 1788. Alexander wrote to 51 of those essays, James Madison 29 and john jay rte. Wrote five. They were written undethpen name publius. The independent journal in the new york packet where the original publishers. The library of congress has an original federalist in book form and we are going to show it to you here. This is at the library of congress. They also have a letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison talking about the importance of a bill of rights. Here is a little bit on that. I am julie miller. I work with early american documents. This is a letter from the James Madison papers. This is a letter that madison wrote to jefferson in the summer of 1788. James madison was one of the authors of the federalist essays and later on he would draft the amendments that would become the bill of rights. In this period, he was not sure yet of the bill of rights. In this letter to jefferson, he says the delay of a few years will assuage the jealousies artificially created and will point out the faults which really call for amendment. He thought it would take a little time before they knew it would need to be amended. What he is saying is that a bill of rights should wait until later on. This is Thomas Jeffersons reply. What jefferson does is she thinks madison for he thanks for the news but says he knew it already. Madison has sent him a copy and jefferson says he already has a copy. Jefferson flatters madison and says with respect to the federalist, the three authors have been named to me. He says i read it with care and pleasure and was satisfied there was nothing in it by one of those hands and by that he meant john jay. And he continues and not a great deal by hamilton. Jefferson continues, does the highest honor to the third, by that he means madison who he is writing to, as being the best commentary on the principles of government. These two letters by jefferson and madison preserve the context of which the federalist essays were written and also how they were received. Arizona State University professor colleen sheehan, what was the role of the bill of rights in the federalist papers . First of all, i have to mention that Arizona State university and the school of civic and economic thought and leadership also has a First Edition of the federalist papers. It is a real treasure here at our university. What is the role of the bill of rights and the federalist papers . Basically, publius and is why we do not need a bill of rights. Both hamilton and madison argue we do not need a bill of rights. The antifederalist our argument for it the antifederalist are arguing for it. The reason he said we do not need a bill of rights is because the American Government is different from the british government. In the british model, the government granted rights to the people gradually. Think of magna carta. The American Government is very different. Government does not grant rights to the people. The people delegate powers to the government. The people are sovereign. And so madison was concerned that if there were a bill of rights that any rights not listed would be assumed that we do not possess them. Ultimately, he comes around and introduces the bill of rights and the First Congress to bring the antifederalists on board to create unity. If we go about this carefully, we can make this work. The bill of rights can become a sort of schoolmaster perhaps to the American People, where we teach ourselves our own rights and responsibilities. Objects, the bill of rights was a victory for the antifederalist. It is something we take for granted today. That is correct. About half the states when they ratified the constitution proposed additional amendments. Most of the states had adopted the constitution immediately after the declaration of independence in 1776. In most of the states they had a supper bill of rights. Separate bill of rights. The federalists were caught off guard. They had to respond to the argument why dont we have one . They did not get around to do it until federalist 84. One of the arguments was to say that rights were protected when there is no power to violate them which somehow suggests the government had more power, hamilton also said we do have a bill of rights, it is spread throughout the constitution. He cited in article three section two the fact that in a criminal trial you have to have a jury. There is a guarantee of habeas corpus and a guarantee of against bills of attainder. He wanted to say we do not need to specify rights, but we have done it. Further he said some of these things like freedom of the press, how would you even define freedom of the press to begin with . It was not very persuasive and i think it was a good compromise. Madison might have been the last politician who kept his promise and proposed a bill of rights. Good evening and thanks for joining us here on books that shaped america. We are talking about the federalist from 1787 and 1788. This is an Interactive Program as most programs on cspan are. We want your input. If you cant get through on the phone, 2027488003 is our text number. We will begin taking those in just a few minutes. We want to show you a picture of an actual federalist essay. It was published in the new york daily advertising advertiser. Were these federalist papers written for elites, where they to persuade the Thomas Jeffersons and the George Washingtons, or were they written for regular folk . I think they were written for regular folks heard they were written to the people of new york. They might have been more complex than the average person could understand, but they certainly were written for the people. Lets go back to the federalist papers. This is from federalist number 10. James madison is talking about factions in america. Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. Colleen sheehan, what was he referring to . He says that a faction could be a majority or a minority of the whole. What is decisive about affection is it is contrary to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent interests of the community. It is unjust. Faction is what destroys popular government. What madison sets as the goal in federalist 10 is to control the violence of faction. Because he wants the majority to rule, but not a majority faction. Somehow the majority that will rule has to be a just majority. If it is not just majority to begin with, it has to be refined through the constitutional processes. Two websites i want to mention to you. Cspanrgbooks that shaped america. More specifically, if you go to the federalist page, you will get other videos that will add to your understanding of the federalist. Secondly, if you want to learn more about Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and john jay, we have a companion webcast podcasts talking about the authors. You can go wherever you get your podcasts and download it there. Judge, john jay is the third and the least significant . He wrote the fewest essays, but he was ill during part of the time. He was a tremendously important political figure. He was the president of congress, later the governor of new york, later the chief justice of the Supreme Court. He was very valued. He was very reasonable. He commanded a lot of respect. The fact that he did not produce as much was attributed more to the fact that he was busy and sick. In the first 10 essays she wrote a number of them but then was unable to continue. Colleen sheehan, did the federalist papers have an impact on the United States . I want to say yes. This has become a real controversy amongst scholars, how influential were the federalist papers . In terms of persuading the people of new york or the other states, some of the essays were republished and they did have some effect. But the longterm effects of the federalist papers is substantial as well. Jefferson called this the best commentary on the principles of government ever written. I do not know if that is a bit of an exaggeration. But the federalist papers are a profound work of politics, bordering on political theory. In the papers, madison and hamilton in particular set forth an understanding of not only the processes of the u. S. Constitution, but in the federalist papers we can see the forest for the trees. They teach us about the purpose of the constitution, about why we have a constitution. The purpose is selfgovernment. There is a lot to be learned from that and that is relevant to us still today. Well, i agree with the sentiments. They started writing the federalist papers at the end of october 1787 and by the end of 1787, several states had already adopted the constitution before half of the federalist papers had been written. None of the people in georgia or delaware had read the vast majority of those papers. I do not think it is possible to say the federalist papers convince people to vote in a particular way. There are too many logical steps to draw that conclusion. In the long run, it has been tremendously influential, especially in the Supreme Court. In all of the early cases, chief Justice Marshall refer to them as being the pinnacle of being an explanation of the constitution. Can the states impose additional restrictions on who can run for congress . Can the federal government required the state officers to enforce federal laws . The Supreme Court has looked at the federalist papers and taken understandings from them and decided the cases. It would be impossible to say they have not had an influence. Lets hear from our viewers. Gabriel from durham, north carolina. Thank you so much for this. This is excellent. My question is about the first question has to do with the influence of the federalist papers on each of the individuals writing based on classic is him on that time, like montesquieu. Or if you think it was intertwined. The second question is, would you ble to share with us what you thought their biggest contribution was for each writer . I wanted to get your view on those two things. Thank you for that. Classicism and the three writers biggest influence. It is remarkable how much medicine knew about antiquity how much madison knew about antiquity and ancient government. When he goes through one historical setup facts after another, it is almost too much for people who have not had that kind of education to understand all of the points he has made. The difficulty was that they were trying something new and they wanted to convince the public that this would work. And they had to draw from historical examples. It was not easy to come up with things that were comparable because most of the republics had been very small prior to this bid proposal. So they drew on everything they knew about. I do not know how persuasive it was to the average person but it is impressive looking at it now. These gentlemen were very welleducated in the classics. Montesquieu was probably the most weighted read. Montesquieu is very influential. Just a few years after writing the federalist papers, madison wrote an essay on montesquieu. He disagrees with him on some things. He thinks montesquieu gave up on popular government too quickly. Madison also thinks that Civic Education is important. Educating the minds of the citizenry. He thinks montesquieu gave up on that and thought it was a task for the ancients. And so in that sense, there is a breaking away from some of the modern thinkers. I am going to read from federalist number 39, James Madison. Is this in any case radical at the time . It is evident that no oth form would be reconcilable with the genius of ople of america, with the fundamental principles of the revolution, or with that honorable determination whic animates every voter you freedom. In article 39, madison was talking about principles of republicanism. He wanted to show that all of the elements of the federal government was fit within these principles of republicanism. He had to explain how republicanism differed from other forms of government and how it would just best allow the new government to succeed. Points that he made was that everybody in the government should be selected by the people, that everybody should have a term limit or be subject to a term by good behavior. He went through and discussed how congress, the president and even the courts would be able to behave in this way. What were the strengths and weaknesses of madison and hamilton . Hamilton was a lawyer. When you look at the numbers from the 50s, 60s and 70s where he discusses what each provision of the constitution does, that is hamiltons strength. Lets take ellen in east chicago, indiana. You are on books that shaped america. Thank you for accepting my call. My question is not as deep as the other guy. You said the man who wrote the federalist papers were not in favor of a bill of rights, but somehow it did get in there. What was the meaning of the Second Amendment . My understanding the second and third amendment came out at the same time and involve the protection of the states. They were housing troops in peoples homes. My understanding it was maybe for the protection and security of the states. And the third amendment being we do not want to house troops in our homes. Lets get a response. Any response for alan . You ask a good question. The problem madison and hamilton had ishe constitution that was oduced did not have a bill of rights. This was not something that completely escaped the nstitutional convention. George mason thought there should have been a bill of rights. But here they had to defend this constitution even though it did not have a bill of rights. They made some arguments for why a bill of rights was not necessary. They are not the strongest arguments, but they had to say something. Ultimately, i think they came up with a good compromise which is we will ratify the constitution and then add the bill of rights. What about the meaning of the Second Amendment . The Second Amendment was not added until after the debate over the constitution, so you will not find any discussion of that in the federalist papers. You have to look at other historical sources. I was getting the idea that lynn was intimating that states rights had an issue to play in the bill of rights. I am not exactly sure, but it is a good question about the Second Amendment, what is its meaning . I would leave it to other scholars. Whether it is to protect individual rights or if you have standing armies, you need a wellestablished militia. Allen also referred to quartering troops. A mans home is his castle, right . So there is of the idea that individual rights is throughout the bill of rights. My own understanding is that the Second Amendment is not replaced by a Standing Army. But that is an individual right. But that is something i leave to the experts. We spent time talking about Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, john jay. But first, we want to show you a walking tour of new york city, where Alexander Hamilton wrote his essays. Ben rubin is our guide. I am coming to you from wall street in new york city. We are standing outside 57 wall st, the site of Alexander Hamiltons home and law office in the months following his attendance at the Constitutional Convention in philadelphia. After the document was drafted, he returned home to new york and began the work of getting it ratified in his home state. Teaming up with john jay they wrote a series of essays under the shared pen name publius, which would be published in newspapers to convince new yorkers to ratify the constitution. I am standing on the corner of wall street and broad street. I had of me is the site of the new york stock exchange, but behind me is the side of the first u. S. Capitol after the Constitutional Convention. In the fall of 87, the capitol moved here from philadelphia. One of the delegates was James Madison, who himself had been one of the principal architects of the constitution. It was at the convention in philadelphia where hamilton and madison had first become acquainted. It was hamilton who suggested to jay that madison as a virginian with a unique perspective on the constitution to be brought in as the third author of the federalist. Standing in Hanover Square which in 1787 what had been eight bustling commercial area. This was also known as Printing House square for the large number of printers who took up residence on the outskirts of the square. This is where many new yorkers would have been exposed to the federalist papers for the first time. They were published sequentially in three newspapers, a new york packet, the independent journal from october 1787 until august 1788. We are standing outside Fraunces Tavern which has been here since 1719. By the time the papers were published, it was one of the most reputable taverns and would have been well known to hamilton personally as he had been a member of the new york sons of liberty before the revolution who had held their meetings here. This is also the site of George Washingtons farewell to the Continental Army in 1783. Because they drew from a wide swath of social classes in new york city, taverns like this one and coffee shops around the city served as one of the principal venues for conversation and debate about the federalist and antifederalist papers. We are looking at the tour of new york city. It sounds to me like there was political intrigue between john jay and Alexander Hamilton and then James Madison when they got to philadelphia. It could very well be the case. We do not know everything about it. Madison wrote a letter explaining some of the creation of the federalist papers and they asked others as well to join them, but were turned down. The interesting thing about that is that they also had day jobs while they are still cranking out two essays per week for seven months. It is really remarkable what they were able to accomplish. They did not have a lot of time to coordinate. They did not get to read each others essays before they were printed. They had a general outline. If they came out a little bit different, that is just how they came out. So basically, no email. Certainly not. Did this ever get published in a book, all of these essays that were printed in the new york newspapers . Yes, and that book is called the federalist, First Published in 1788. They had to write their own essays. The first federalist paper was published october 27th, 1787. Within the week before that, sarah jay, john jays wife through a dinner party in new york at their home, westchester county. It was all men. Among the men there was Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. I would have liked to be a fly on the wall at the dinner party to hear what the three of them might have talked about. Was this book the a bestseller . The federalist a bestseller . I do not know how many copies it sold. Maybe the judge knows. It was printed in two volumes. It was published in march. The second volume was published at the end of may. The printer printed 500 copies and it was not a bestseller because we know that fall, the printer wrote a letter complaining he still had hundreds of copies unfold. Initially it was not, but if you are lucky enough to have one of the original 500, you are in very good luck today. There was this term that became used in the federalist papers. Checks and balances. Madison, ambition must be made to counteract an. Connected with thee man must be Constitutional Rights of the place. Nature that such devices should be necessary to control th abuses of gove. What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. Was this a pretty novel idea at the time . I do not think it was a novel idea, but i do not think it had been articulated quite as clearly, especially the idea that if men were angels, no government would be necessary. He went on to speak about what was required to make sure the government could govern the people and also govern itself. And having separation of powers. Having federalism, both State Governments and federal governments. Concepts of having different bodies elect the president and select the judges and the senate and the house. All of those things were thought to put controls on this possibility that faction would cost the government to be harmful. Lets hear from george in new york city. Thank you to cspan for this wonderful program. My question deals with the fundamental principle enshrined in the constitution that no person is above the law. Apart from the immunity granted by article one, clause six of the u. S. Constitution, which grants legislators immunity, do the federalist papers speak to the question of immunity of the president of the United States or of judges, or do the federalist papers speak as to the question of immunity more broadly that can give us some guidance today . They do not speak expressly to those topics, at least not to my knowledge. When those cases have come up at the Supreme Court, they had to look at other sources. President ial privilege, immunity , all of these have been established by the Supreme Court to some extent. You cannot find them expressly in the text of the constitution. There is the speech and debate clause for congress, but there is nothing comparable. Similar to judicial immunity. They thought of judges the way judges were thought of at the time and there was judicial immunity there. You are right that these things were not in the constitution and to my knowledge they are not discussed in the federalist papers. I would have to study that specific question more clearly but i do not recall anything specifically about them. Given his question about the timeliness, let us bring in caroline feddersen, a law professor. She joins us now. Our last caller asked about the timeliness of the federalist papers. What do they mean in your view . I am speaking as a law professor and how relevant they are to the teaching of constitutional law. What i think is so helpful is to have the students read the federalist papers while they are starting to dig into the structure of the constitution and get a more theoretical framework about what the framers were trying to achieve for separation of powers and federalism. And bring in that into the conversation. So many of us grew up knowing that is the structure we have and do not really dig deep. The rich argumentation provided in the papers is a wonderful opportunity to have a discussion around what they were thinking, why they put the constitution together the way they did. And also, whether it has been a successful project. In your view, has it been successful . By and large, we are still here. We are still a nation that continues to have a fairly robust democracy, a democracy that has gotten much stronger since the founding. There were a lot of flaws that have to be discussed in the initial constitution, grave problems. We have been making improvements all along the way they have made the country a much better country when we look at the reconstruction amendments and the description of that as the second founding, the birth of a new nation after the civil war and the end of slavery. So i think yes, but is my answer. When you teach the federalist papers, what is the first lesson for your students . Trying to understand the whole argument about why we needed to have both a republic that had a little bit of distance to the federalist papers from the people, why it was important to have a Central Government, not just have each state being its own government. You mentioned ambition checking ambition, but what was the idea the founders had about setting up the different branches of government as mechanisms for checking abuses of power. We also talk about what they missed. Sorta the irony of not anticipating the rise of partisanship. Parties have become such a dominant force that it undermines the idea that the branches check each other. When you read the fierce political battles that were taking place at the beginning, you see it all happened immediately. You kind of wonder about the blind spot. We talked about that. Their great vision and their areas of great blindness. Are there robust debates in your classroom about the federalist papers . To some extent, yes of course. About a broader question about constitutionalism generally. And how do we understand the constitution. To what extent does the document remain in the 18th century govern us now and did the framers anticipate how we would handle these issues . That is obviously a debate that consumes far more than the legal community, but really goes to the heart of how we imagine our democracy. The federalist papers are a Vantage Point to get into that debate and try to figure out how and why should we adhere to this document. The judge has been nodding his head. What were you hearing, judge . I agree with every point she made. I teach it George Washington university as an adjunct and i have the same reaction from my students. It is interesting how they got so many things right, but they missed a few things they did not quite think about. Ask the professor said, it is hard to imagine that they did not understand that parties would play such a hard large role, and yet they do. We do not have a perfect constitution. He says how to make a treaty, but not how to get out of a treaty. I teach that class too. Early on in discussed in the articles of confederation, you have to remeerhe circumstances inhich they were written. They were very trying circumstances so we did not come out perfectly. I think the same thing is true with the u. S. Constitution. One thing they had the advantage of is that they had about 11 about 13 years of state constitutions that had been written. 11 years of 13 state constitutions that had been written. Some were very good, some were not so good. They learned a little bit about how to write a constitution. Colleen sheehan, what have you been hearing . I want to agree with what has been set as well. They saw a lot, they missed some things. The question of Political Parties remember who started parties in america was actually madison and jefferson on one side, and Alexander Hamilton on the others. So the authors of the federalist papers, four yearsater are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. The federalists versus the republicans. I do not think they were totally naive about that. What they did not want was parties in the way they had known them through the british system. I think madisons idea about funding the Republican Party in the United States was not to find a party along the partition model. He thought of it as against those he considered antirepublicans. He was afraid the moneyed men in hamiltons new york city were going to take over and not let the common man have their say. There was a little bit more to that dispute that goes on between them and to the question of parties that sometimes we make it out to be. I do not have any argument with that. How did they not figure some of this into the division of power between the branches . Perhaps they would have had to be too omniscient to understand how certain mechanisms, like impeachment for example, is basically a nonfunctional part of the constitution, except for a handful of judges who have been impeached. The alignments are not based on the branch, but based on partisanship. So it does not function as a way of checking elected officials who have otherwise been engaged in some activities that might be impeachable under other circumstances. We can see parts of the constitution that do not work the way they were supposed to with the rise of parties. It was right from the get go. You see it in marbury versus madison. We held up this case for obvious reasons as being so profound. When you look at the facts underlying it, they are pretty defining. Thank you for spending a few minutes with us on books that shaped america. Pleased to be with you. We are talking about the federalist papers. There are nine Public Schools named after alexand hamilton, five for john jay, there is James Madison university in virginia. The are more than 200 breakfast since to the federalist papers and Supreme Court decisions. More than 3000 references to fedelist 78 by Supreme Court justices. There hamilton statues in washington dc. The James Madison building at the library of congress and the john jay statue at new york city college. This is Alexander Hamilton. Liberty ca have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but what have everything to fear from its what was the importance of federalist number 78 . Judge maggs hamilton described the judiciary, talking about how judges were appointed, the tenure and powers and one of his famous quotes was, they have neither the sword nor the purse, they only decide questions. They cannot spend money or engage in any action except deciding questions. He wrote about the importance of having an independent judiciary. He said it does not make sense to have limited government without it because there is no way to enforce it. If you talked about judicial review before that but it is clear hamilton had thought about the idea that there were unconstitutional laws that would not be enforced. He also talked about the idea that judges had to be learned and know that president s and the idea that they had to be independent to carry out duties. I think every judge is familiar with federal 78 and i think it is no doubt the reason why so many Supreme Court justices have cited the article. That is was not published until may 1787 and by then eight states had already ratified. So we did not influence those states. Peter sergio is on the phone from albany, new york. I have a twopart question. I am interested in finding out whether the federalist papers served the purpose of the scope of work to develop the republic as well and also, who were the essays directed to . The general population at the time, or the landowning gentry . Thank you. Peter thank you. Prof. Sheehan the second question, they were directed to the people of the state of new york, landholders who voted but virtually anyone, it was not that difficult to own land. So that is the second question. The first, as a template to the republic, if i understood your question correctly, interesting enough, medicine uses the federalist papers a few years later as the basis to build on for an outline to try to get at an understanding of what republican government is and how to make it work. He figured he had started the project in the federalist papers and had not finished it so he spends weeks or months prior to his trip up Lake Champlain in new york state with jefferson in spring 1791 writing an outline on republicanism, starting with people like plato and trying to figure out how to make government by the people really work in the United States. What he is doing on this tour up Lake Champlain, it looks like he is organizing a political party. Peter back to federalist one line from hamilton,he judiciary is beyond comparison. The weakest of the three departments of our. We have a text message of power. We have a text message from tom in new jersey. When hamilton states the judiciary does not bestow the sword or purse is he stating the Additional Branch has less power than the congress or merely independent of the other two branches . Prof. Sheehan he is stating both. When we say that this is a balanced government, when we say checks and balances, that term is not in the federalist papers. This is not in the constitution at all, we look to that federalist papers to explain what is going on in the constitution. This is not a balanced government and that all branches are equal. They are meant to check each other, but not equal. The legislative branch is by far the most powerful. It represents the people. That is why it is divided into two houses, the senate and house, because it is so powerful. Do you shift the judiciary was thought to be the weakest branch. It was definitely a blind spot of the poop leahs. It has turned of publius. Peter we have a representative of that branch. Judge, do you agree with the sentiment by Alexander Hamilton . Judge maggs i agree with professor sheehan assessment of hamiltons statement, which is that it is somewhat of a blind thought blind spot, he thought the judiciary would be weaker than it turned out to be. In that same passage where he talks about judicial review, hamilton said no weight can be given to the idea that judges will avoid applying statutes based on the pretense that they are unconstitutional. I am paraphrasing. Certainly today that is the concern of judicial power, is the Supreme Court striking down things that are constitutional. He did not see this would happen. Maybe judges were different in his day. Maybe with a Smaller Group or for whatever reason, i agree completely with professor sheehan that they were saying the judiciary was the weakest but i think they would have been surprised at how it turned out. Peter whoonsiders the different departments of power must perceive in a government where they are separate the judiciary from theate of functions wi aays be the let dangerous to the Political Rights of the constitution because it will be leased in the capacity to injure them. John in columbus, ohio, thanks for holding. Thank you for having me on. My question is about these authors as political operators. I understand they were trying to achieve something in their time and i am wondering, were there historic examples they looked to that made thethink that writing the papers would be effective . Peter do you go to ohio state . No. I work in the area but i do not go to school, no. Peter thank you. Judge . Judge maggs the watches of the show will know that last week there was a program on the pamphlet common sense. But they did not have television or radio, they had newspapers. Essays written in newspapers with a grand tradition of trying to make political points and have it work in their favor. They used the means of communications that were readily available to them. They were not the only ones doing it. There was a whole group of people also writing essays saying the constitution should not be adopted, the antifederalists. Now we have cspan on television allowing us to hear both sides but that was not the case then and there was a tradition of writing pamphlets of this kind and i think they thought it would be useful. Professor sheehan mentioned new york was a crucial state. It was also tilting towards opposing the constitution. The president of the Constitutional Convention was an opponent of the constitution. Others left the convention. There were big players in new york politics and opposed it. So they thought something had to be done. That is why they wrote these papers. Peter we are going to show a little video about how the founding era and hamilton in particular had entered into popular culture. Hear me out. A series of essays anonymously published defending the documents of the public. No one would read it. If it fails . Thats why we would need it. Peter professor sheehan, what has been the impact of the musical hamilton on the understanding and popularity of studying the constitution . Prof. Sheehan it is fabulous. I love it. I did not get to see the musical, hamilton, but i know most of the songs because my students know them all and when it first came out, i heard them singing them in the hallways. So it was a slice of American History that became not only popular, but became a topic of conversation among people. Just like that series on john adams did. These are not things just for history books. These are ideas that live with us today and if this is one way to bring them alive, i am all for it, absolutely. Peter we have not talked about john adams. Did he have a role in the federalist papers . Prof. Sheehan he was in england and when they were sitting at the Constitutional Convention, he was publishing one of his volumes of defense of the constitution of the United States and people were reaching it at the Constitutional Convention. It made its way across the ocean. I know for one madison was disgusted with what he called atoms of noxious principles. Adams was a bit of a john adams of noxious principles. Obnoxious principles. Is there such a thing as [indiscernible] it is debated back and forth, can you go inside the mind of someone who lived in the 18th century . Peter judge . Judge maggs originalism is the idea that judges should be influenced but not bound by the original meaning of the constitution but it gets quite complicated because it turns out there is more than one view of what we mean by the original meaning. We could mean the original intent of the framers at the Constitutional Convention, the people who wrote the document, what did they think. Or it could mean the original understanding by those who ratified the constitio in 1787 and 1788. Or we could talk about the original public meaning or objective meaning, which is what would the average people would have understood this to mean . What did the words mean when they were used . You asked a very important question, how are we to know what someone then would have thought . Not without tools. There are many historical sources and if you can find an agreement among those sources it gives you more confidence but i think where you get into difficulty is may be all you have is a snippet of the federalist papers or a snippet from the debates recorded at the Constitutional Convention. In such cases, your point is right, to be we just cannot figure out what the original meaning is. But then there is the question of, who has the burden of proof and how certain do we have to be . A entire course could be taught on the question you asked. Peter people who teach the federalist papers, we want to introduce you to a professor of social science at a california high school. This is my 24th year teaching social science in orange county, california. I have taught government and economics and i am a law academy coordinator. When students learn about the federalist papers, it is because this is our story. This is our origin story. The history of the world does not begin when we start paying attent it. These things are connected. There are three lines through lines between what we are experiencing now and then. What do we know about the federalist papers . It is for the constitution. Great. Who wrote them . James madison, Alexander Hamilton, and john jay. The Supreme Court indicated courts are supposed to evaluate historical standards in deciding whether or not fire alarms regulation firearms regulations are constitutional. We will be at a tremendous loss if we do not know where we came from. Understanding the federalist papers understand helps us understand what was going on when they wrote the constitution. We have to understand what it is we are trying to achieve so we can continue to become more perfect. The biggest challenge is the language. It is difficult to navigate. People are people but the way we talk changes. When we are thinking about what was written in the newspaper and compare it to a current newspaper articles they do not have much inommon in terms of ge and phrasing sgetting the students to unpack the language is one of the Biggest Challenges. What i want my students to understand is that these ordinary humans were extraordinary heroes. We are having this National Conversation about how we teach social science. The idea that multiple things can be true, we have people who struggled but also did great things and history connects, the things we experience now have lines back to the struggles from back then. Peter we want to thank the social Science Teacher for sharing her thoughts on teaching the federalist papers. Charles from louisville, kentucky, thank you for holding. Go ahead. My question is on the checks and balances on the constitution and politics we have today. It seems to me that legislation was changed years ago when the democrats had full control and when they lost the house, they could not seem to pass any bills because they cannot get them on the floor because the democrats really had control of the house. Peter thank you. Charles brought contemporary politics into our discussion. Are they relevant to what we have been talking about . Prof. Sheehan sure. Even though we have Political Parties today, there is still separation of powers and checks and balances because ambition counteracts ambition. You see that in state legislatures and between and among the various branches of government. Democrats side with democrats and republicans side with democrats vie with democrats and republicans vie with republicans to be the next speaker of the house or president. One thing i wanted to mention was the question of choice in politics. Because i think charles was sort of talking about the parties not really having a choice unless they have the majority. That is one of the things that i think is most important in politics today, to realize that even though it is tough to get things done because of separation of power and checks and balances on what people called deadlocks, Congress Needs to take responsibility for legislation and not abdicate the responsibility to other branches of government, the judiciary has become more powerful partly in response to congress not doing their job. I do not think this is a partisan claim at all. It is a question about the role of those who represent the American People and standing up and actually doing the job of legislation. If they are not doing the job, the people are not being represented well in the United States. Peter the federalist was not the only book published from 1758 through 1800 in the United States. On the list, here are some of the others featured. The legend of Sleepy Hollow was published in 1820. The book of mormon for the church of jesus christ of latter day saints was published in 1830. Mcguffeys newly revised primer published in 1836. Children were taught geography and history with a book written in 1837. A selection of stories from Edgar Allen Poe was published in 1845. Here are more books from the library of Congress List of books that shaped america. The scarlet letter, 1850. Moby dick, 1851. Uncle toms cabin by Harriet Beecher stowe released in 1852. Henry david thorough writing about nature and solitary solidarity in 1854 with his book, walden. Per if you go to cspan. Org you will find the library of Congress List of 100 books over the past 250 years or so that have influenced who we are today, shaped public policy, and made us who we are. You can find that full list. We have chosen 10 fr t list for our series. You can create your own list on cspan. Org, books that shaped america. At the top you can click a viewer input and sending your videos about how you think books havehad america, specifically if you have a book on your list that is not related to the one we are talking about. Click on t bton and send in a video and we might use it. We want to show you some of the viewer videos now. My name is david. I think a book that shaped america is where the wild things grow. For so many of us it is one of the first books we ever read. We run it with our parents and it created enthusiasm and excitement for reading and we kept wanting to turn the next page, which is still part of the reading journey for so many of us. I am sarah baldwin. I live and work in washington, d. C. And the book i think that shaped america is the souls of black folks by w ide the boy. Wb deploy. He discusses the issues around race in the country and how we can resolve them. That is the book i think should be part of this series. I am grant from chattanooga, tennessee. The book i think shaped america is beloved by toni morrison. It explores race in america in cool and interesting ways. It is very atmospheric. Thank you. My name is Ryan Donaldson and a man washington, d. C. And the book that shaped the country is [indiscernible] and it shapes the u. S. Because [inaudible] it informs the viewer to get to the ballot box. Blue highways shaped america. It showcases the part of america that is not often seen in most modern or major Literary Works and i think it is a very important piece of amerina and culture. Peter there is the website. Books that shaped america at cspan. Org. Find all 10 books we will feature in the series and you can nd additional videos on eachook, plus we have a podcast talking about the authors of each book. You can get the podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Mark from bridgewater, massachusetts, please go ahead. Good evening and distinguished guests. When i think about the contribution of the Founding Fathers on the work of a have done with the federalist papers, i am also thinking about the 18th century americans were interested in preserving the liberty for which they had fought virtually loosely virtuously during the revolution. Each individual state had specific needs and it is understanding why they had reservations about potentially sacrificing liberties to a Central Government. My question is, must americans be prepared to sacrifice additional liberties as our world becomes increasingly complex . Thank you very much. Peter gregory . Judge maggs he has a premise on a question. I agree with the premise. One of the biggest concerns they had to address is now we will have a more powerful Central Government which means the states will be less powerful which means you might not have as much liberty as you might otherwise have. One of the Biggest Challenges the authors faced was how to explain that this was actually going to be an improvement. They talked about a lot of different things. They talked about the fact that if the union fell apart, every individual state would have to have their own Standing Army to defend itself but if we had a union we would not need a Standing Army of this kind. If you had a federal government and State Government to check each other. You mentioned today, is it the case that we have to sacrifice liberty in order to have a successful government. I hope not. As a judge i do not really get into politics but i do not think this is a new debate. It is very similar to the debate you pointed out occurred back then. Peter colleen from Arizona State university, you have 30 seconds. Did the federalist impact who we are today . Prof. Sheehan yes. Yes. I think the most important of the papers is federalist 51, or medicine proclaims justice is the end of government, of civil society. It will never be pursued until liberty be lost in its pursuit. That is my answer to the last callers question. Judge maggs it definitely has and watching that fabulous high school with the teacher and enthusiasm of students i think it would be hard to deny the impact of the papers have had on america. Peter thank you both so much for spending the last 90 minutes with us on cspans books that shaped america. And thank you, callers