The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics)

If you want to understand the Constitution, you should read the Federalist Papers. They present, at great length, the rationale for discarding the Articles of Confederation and adopting the Constitution. You really can't claim to understand the Constitution, how it works, how it fits together, and how it was intended to fit together without reading these articles. (I picked this up on the recommendation of Justice Scalia, and he was absolutely right about this being a must-read to understand the Constitution.) (A quick note on this particular edition of the Federalist Papers: while it self-describes as an "enriched classic", it is not especially enriched. As is proper, the book includes a copy of the Constitution and its amendments -- although strangely it omits the 27th Amendment despite being published well after its ratification. [There is no included copy of the Articles of Confederation, unfortunately -- I'd definitely have found such a copy helpful, particularly since I had no other access to them when reading the book.] A notes section which explains the cultural and historical references scattered throughout the papers. A brief 7-page "Interpretive Notes" section discusses the context for the Federalist Papers. A "Critical Excerpts" section discusses early reactions to and scholarship concerning the Federalist Papers up to the present day. And there's a couple pages of questions and a few suggestions for further learning for the interested reader. Does this spare additional material really an "enriched classic" make? There's something to be said for providing the unvarnished text, with explanatory notes that are informative but not interpretive; it's much easier for the reader to form his own opinions, uninfluenced by the biases of a commentator, when the Federalist Papers stand on their own. This is for the most part the strategy this book follows. Yet I would not call this book, for following that strategy, an "enriched classic". If you're looking for analysis of each paper in context with the papers themselves, this is not the book for you.) The entire series is long, consisting of 85 papers of various lengths. Yet it's well worth reading and slogging through, even if you have to contend with the 1780s style of highly-educated writing to do it. That said, I would strongly recommend not attempting to read it the way one might read any old book, starting at the beginning, reading a bunch at a stretch, then reading a bunch more at a stretch, until the entire series is read. Instead, read a paper at a time, then spend some time to think it over. Consider the arguments and how they fit together; look at how they relate to the modern day; consider what was missed in the initial analysis. Giving each article the time it requires will make this book take considerably longer than the average book of 630 pages (not including text after the articles) would take. But it's worth it. (For a little context, I started this book a couple weeks before an Appalachian Trail thru-hike, expecting at some point to finish it and leave it in a shelter for some other hiker to read, at which point I'd pick up another book and do the same thing, as many times as it took to finish the hike. I didn't even finish this book over those 139 days of hiking, only on the flight home -- it's that dense and worthy of thought. And it's not like I was distracted by other reading, either: I only read one other book in full during that time, plus a couple hundred pages of another. And even reading with that deliberateness, I'm sure I'd get more out of it if I spent the time to read it again.)

Exactly as described and a perfect addition to any homeschool history program. I purchased this for my daughter who was in second grade but we are very strong into American history and rights. This book was perfect for what we're doing this semester. Paper is a good thickness and quality. The cover was paperback as described, but it's a good thickness as well. The verbiage is accurate but also easy to understand

This book contains the series of of essays expounding the merits of the new Constitution and to answer objections which had begun to appear in newspapers columns in New York and across the United States.The Federalist, 85 essays addressed "To The People of the State of New York" and signed with the pseudonym "Publius." The essays were written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay & James Madison. Hamilton decided to issue the collected essays in 2 hardcover volumes, adding a preface to the 1st volume describing some of the methods, reasoning and intent involved in the transformation of the essays into a book. These essays drive the reasoning behind each part of the Constitution, evidence of the general opinion of the framers of the document, answering questions as to its genuine meaning. It is an analysis that must be taken in small doses, and as all was written for not only the critical reader, but also for the general public, the essays do, at times, become rhetorical, The authority by which these essays are viewed and accepted is helping me to understand a great deal about our political system and recognition of some of the pitfalls we, as the people, have been warned of but in our genuine ignorance unable to recognize. For instance, Essay No. 68: The Mode of Electing the President speaks to the serious nature of the election with the comittment to the people the right of selecting from the general mass by fellow-citizens, rather than any pre-established body, a small number of persons to form an intermediate, temporary body of electors whose sole purpose is the appointment of the President once receiving the majority of votes from the public. Excluded from eligibility to this trust are all who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office, including any who hold office or hold a place of trust or profit under the United States. This Essay addresses Article II of the Constitution of the United States with thorough explanation of how the President & Vice-President are to be elected. (the XII Amendment changes only the balloting from each elector voting for 2 persons on 1 ballot; the person having the majority of votes shall be President; after choice of President, the person having the majority of votes shall be Vice-President. TO Electors shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President.) It is dry, repetitive reading but I have been learning.

Not too many years after the United States won their independence from Great Britain it was generally acknowledged that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate. In 1787 in Philadelphia a convention that included several of the Founding Fathers convened and later that year proposed a new constitution for the young nation. Months later, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers--they hoped to influence public opinion toward ratification of the Constitution. In these 85 essays, they listed some of the problems that the new nation was facing due to the lack of an adequate central government. The authors set forth the military and economic advantages that they thought ratification of the Constitution would bring about and also asserted that the document would promote domestic tranquility through a stronger union. Perhaps the most famous of the essays today is Federalist 10, in which Madison explained that a populous republic with many factions would protect against tyranny--coalitions and people within the coalitions would shift and change over time, so that no one faction or interest group would be able to dominate permanently. Madison's prophecy proved correct--one can look back across the decades and centuries of American history and see how certain groups and interests left political parties or joined others, creating new temporary majorities and changing the course of government and history. The Founders and other delegates to the convention were well aware of the dangers of too much centralization, but they thought that they had fathomed a proper balance between state and federal authority with the doctrine of separation of powers. The federal government itself was also set up with checks and balances between the president, Congress, and the judiciary, and the authors make their case as to why these institutions were designed as they were. These essays also describe the further check of regular elections for representatives and senators and explain how they work. One gains when reading these essays a sense of how well the Framers of the Constitution understood human nature. They even anticipated the demoralizing effects of "voluminous...incoherent" legislative bills and recognized the deleterious effects that uncertainty would have on business and commerce. As well as the 85 essays, this Oxford World's Classics edition of the Federalist Papers contains a solid introduction and explanatory notes, and as an appendix contains the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Any citizen who reads this book will gain a richer understanding of the Constitution as well as a fresh appreciation of the genius of the Founding Fathers.

The Federalist Papers is without a doubt a necessary compilation of rhetoric trying to bring out all the positive aspects of the American Constitution (as well as to discredit some of the criticism it received) for any individual considering himself politically enlightened. Far too many times you will be likely to encounter someone who is completely unfamiliar with notions like executive prerogative and is in utter bewilderment where Bush, for example, gets off with such ideas as the recent wiretaps. The abstract justification for such cases is among the countless other arguments provided by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay within these pages, and though one may disagree with them, they are nonetheless important to know and understand. They are hardly perfect, and many, such as Hamilton's attempt to justify the absence of a Bill of Rights, show that these articles sought to employ every argument available to make it seem that the Constitution was a paragon of a social contract (rather than a document meticulously written as a result of numerous compromises with little universal ideological consistency), but they are nonetheless important to have in one's library. Of course, it's easy to find every single one of them online for free, not to mention all the other documents this edition adds on, such as the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. It is a good thing, then, that this edition is so cheap, as it is certainly convenient to have them all in a relatively small book that preserves all your markings. The edition also tries to overcome this burden of free access to its material through a masterfully written introduction, through a table of contents that briefly summarizes the argument contained within each article, and through the numerous footnotes that concisely expand upon the many now archaic references to the Romans and the Classics that Publius tends to make. For these reasons, I find having this precise copy of the Federalist Papers worth the 7 or so bucks that it costs. The one thing I dislike about it, and why I give it 4 stars rather than 5, is that the paper and ink are almost of newspaper quality, so that extensive reading will tend to leave black markings on one's fingers. This does get annoying when writing papers about it and flipping around its pages.

Very informative and should be mandatory reading in high school history classes.

Every family should buy one before they cannot.

Before the ratification of the Constitution of 1787, three of its Framers, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, published a series of articles called The Federalist in a New York paper under the pen name of "Publius." These articles are now published as The Federalist Papers. Publius' intent was to defend the proposed Constitution by explaining its overall integrity and the republican government it would establish. Ironically, one of Publius' intents was to defend the Constitution against the argument it was too weak to withstand those who would subvert republicanism in favor of some form of aristocratic domination. Sadly, not many read this work, despite the fact that it is one of the few documents that define what the founders' intent really was. This omission has not stopped many from espousing their (lack of) knowledge of that intent. The casual reader can be put off by the size of the work, 85 articles, and the seriousness of the articles. This work was intended for serous people. However, one can approach it with a pen and yellow highlighter and LEARN its wisdom or the more casual reader can let the Introduction guide them to the pieces that interest them. These casual readers will learn The Federalist Papers are divided into two divisions, each with different themes. The first division addresses the issue of a "firm" and "well-constructed" Union as opposed to a lose confederation of states. This division then addresses how the constitution is protected from the founders' anticipated accidental and intentional threats and answers: what the respective purposes of the Union and the Constitution are; what should be done with society's will; the problem of politics; and even the issues of taxes and maintaining an army. All of these together described the function of government as defined by the Constitution. In the second division, The Federalist Papers move from the basic function of government to the structure of the American government and using that structure to secure society's common good, the people's happiness, and the public good. All this is accomplished using a moderate tone that makes the reader part of the discourse and not the object of a lecture. This is a constitution aimed at the public in many ways. So at heart, The Federalist Papers is a guide to the Constitution intended for the casual reader, a reader who can pick and chose those elements that are meaningful.

It's a great refresher for essays that we had to read many years ago.

Ok

bu yayınevinin kitapları çok iyi oluyor, orijinal dilde ne baksam bu yayınevi hep iyi basmış oluyor.

it is a foundation work for a building a great nation and source of inspiration for all those who wish to build a nation as they built

Jeder weiß, dass die Verfassung der USA ein Musterbild für einen demokratischen Staat ist, und ein Musterbild für einen Bundesstaat noch dazu. Aber warum eigentlich? Was sind die Ideen hinter den teilweise seltsam anmutenden Regelungen dieser Verfassung? Diese Frage wird nicht von der Verfassung selbst beantwortet, sondern von den sogenannten "Federalist Papers", einer Reihe von Zeitungsartikeln von 1787/88, die das Volk des Staates New York davon überzeugen sollten, der vorgeschlagenen Verfassung zuzustimmen. Dieser Klassiker der politischen Philosophie ist auch heute noch lesenswert, weil er Weisheit und Einsicht des Lesers fördert, und weil er zu kritischem Nachdenken über die eigene, heutige Staatsverfassung herausfordert. Wenn man die eigene Verfassung oder die derzeitige Verfassung der Europäischen Union mit den Ideen der US-Verfassung vergleicht, überkommt einen nicht selten der Zorn über so viel Unsinn und interessegeleiteten Polit-Traditionalismus in Europa, und der Neid auf so viel Klugheit und 200jährige Modernität in Amerika. Fast möchte man zum Revolutionär werden ... Zum Inhalt: Die "Federalist Papers" sprechen die US-Verfassung thematisch Punkt für Punkt durch: Sinn des Bundesstaates, Zuständigkeiten von Bund und Einzelstaaten, Gewaltenteilung (Armee, Steuern, etc.), Zusammensetzung und Befugnisse von: Repräsentantenhaus, Senat, Präsident, Justiz. Da es sich um Zeitungsartikel handelt, gibt es manche Wiederholung und kein ganz allzu systematisches Inhaltsschema, aber für ein über 200 Jahre altes Buch liest es sich immer noch recht modern. Es ist sehr interessant zu sehen, wie die Verfassungswirklichkeit hinter der geschriebenen Verfassung diskutiert wird. Häufig entwickeln sich Dinge nämlich ganz anders, als sie beabsichtigt waren. Eine Regelung wird vielleicht nie genutzt, weil sie Nachteile mit sich bringt, eine andere Regelung wird anders genutzt, als gedacht. Die Balance zwischen den drei Gewalten Legislative, Exekutive und Judikative kommt in Schieflage und eine Gewalt dominiert die beiden anderen Gewalten: Was mit guter Absicht in einer Verfassung geregelt wurde, kann trotzdem schiefgehen, weil es an der Wirklichkeit vorbeigeht. Um dies zu erkennen, benötigt man Menschenkenntnis, Lebenserfahrung, Geschichtswissen und eine gesunde Skepsis. Das ist hier reichlich zu finden und man kann viel davon lernen. So heißt es z.B. in Nr. 71: "It is a just observation, that the people commonly intend the public good. This often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator who should pretend that they always reason right about the means of promoting it." Manchmal ist es besser, die Verfassungsorgane blockieren sich gegenseitig: Besser, ein gutes Gesetz wird abgelehnt, als dass ein schlechtes Gesetz angenommen wird. Andererseits wenden sich die Federalist Papers auch gegen eine zu große Skepsis und rät zur Akzeptanz von kleineren Übeln, um die Verfassung funktionsfähig zu halten. Besser, die Exekutive ist in einer starken Hand, als in der Hand eines Kollektivs, das vielleicht informell von einer Person beherrscht wird, und man nicht mehr weiß, welches Mitglied des Kollektvs man verantwortlich machen soll. Die Gewaltenteilung wird hier ebenfalls anders diskutiert, als man es gemeinhin kennt. Die Gewalten sollen zwar getrennt voneinander sein, aber es werden ganz gezielt und mit voller Absicht diverse Überschneidungen der Gewalten in die Verfassung eingebaut. Der Sinn dahinter ist, dass sich die Gewalten gegenseitig in Schach halten können, um auf diese Weise ihre Trennung auch machttechnisch abzusichern. Denn nur weil es auf dem Papier steht, ist die Trennung der Gewalten noch lange nicht gesichert. Die bundesstaatliche Ebene darf sich nicht auf den guten Willen der Einzelstaaten verlassen, dass diese einmal gemachte Zusagen schon einhalten werden - sie werden es nicht, und dann ist der Streit zwischen den Einzelstaaten da: "There is, perhaps, nothing more likely to disturb the tranquillity of nations than their being bound to mutual contributions for any common object that does not yield an equal and coincident benefit. For it is an observation, as true as it is trite, that there is nothing men differ so readily about as the payment of money." (Nr. 7). - Der Bundesstaat muss vielmehr unabhängig von der Zustimmung der Einzelstaaten handlungsfähig sein, indem er z.B. eigene Beamte hat und eigene Steuern direkt beim Bürger eintreibt. Die Einzelstaaten und der Bundesstaat wirtschaften völlig unabhängig voneinander. Dann können Gerechtigkeits- und Verteilungsprobleme gar nicht erst entstehen. Antike: Es ist hochinteressant zu sehen, wie die "Federalist Papers" das antike Erbe aufgreifen! Anders als man meinen könnte, wird nicht - praktisch überhaupt nicht! - auf die politische Philosophie der Antike zurückgegriffen. Was Platon, Aristoteles und Cicero über Demokratie und gemischte Verfassung, den Kreislauf der Staatsformen und die Vorzüge der römischen Republik geschrieben haben, wird nirgendwo als Argument herangezogen. Den Grund erfährt man in Nr. 14 im Rahmen einer Lobrede auf das amerikanische politische Denken: "But why is the experiment of an extended republic to be rejected, merely because it may comprise what is new? Is it not the glory of the people of America, that, whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience?" - Nicht weil irgendeine Autorität einst irgend etwas sagte, sondern nur wenn es vernünftige Argumente gibt, soll etwas gelten. Obwohl dies auf den ersten Blick nach einer Ablehnung der Antike aussieht, ist es in Wahrheit die genaue Nachahmung des antiken Denkens. Denn wie Platon argumentieren sie ohne Gehorsam gegenüber Autoritäten und nur nach ihrer Vernunft. In einem weiteren Punkt kommt eine Ähnlichkeit zu Platon zum Ausdruck: Die "Federalist Papers" argumentieren ständig gegen die Argumente der Verfassungsgegner. Diese kommen zwar nicht zu Wort, aber dennoch gewinnen die "Federalist Papers" dadurch einen deutlich dialogischen Charakter. Man hat an manchen Stellen das Gefühl, wie wenn Sokrates mit einem Sophisten spräche und dessen Ansichten zerlege, bis nichts mehr davon übrig ist. Dass die Autoren der "Federalist Papers" die antike politische Philosophie sehr wohl kannten, kommt an einigen wenigen Stellen zum Ausdruck. So heißt es in Nr. 49: "But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings whished for by Plato." - In Nr. 51 heißt es: "But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" und: "Justice is the end of government." ("end"=Ziel) - Damit ist eine teils zustimmende Kenntnis von Platons politischer Philosophie klar belegt. In expliziter Form kommt die Antike auf eine ganz andere Weise massiv zum Tragen: Nicht die Philosophen und ihre politischen Theorien, sondern die antiken Geschichtsschreiber und ihre Berichte über Zustände und Ereignisse in den antiken Staaten werden exzessiv als Beispiele in den "Federalist Papers" herangezogen! Schon immer haben die Staatsphilosophen auf der Grundlage realer historischer Ereignisse argumentiert, und das geschieht natürlich auch hier. Einige wenige Beispiele mögen sein: Die Frage, ob ein Flächenstaat eine Demokratie sein kann; die Macht eines Einzelnen über eine Volksversammlung; das Amt des Dikators in der römischen Republik. Folgende Zitate aus Nr. 63 seien noch angeführt: "... that the position concerning the ignorance of the ancient governments on the subject of representation, is by no means precisely true in the latitude commonly given to it." und: "What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions?" und: "... that history informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a senate. Sparta, Rome, and Carthage are, in fact, the only states to whom that character can be applied." Man darf auch nicht vergessen, dass hinter praktisch allen Ideen der US-Verfassung antike Ideen wie z.B. die Gewaltenteilung stehen, die über verschiedene Autoren wie z.B. Montesquieu weiterentwickelt wurden, so dass der antike Hintergrund nur indirekt erschließbar ist. Nicht zuletzt ist die Wahl des Autoren-Pseudonyms "Publius" in Anlehnung an den römischen Konsul Publius Valerius Publicola ein unabweisbarer Bezug zur Antike. Die Anti-Föderalisten nannten sich hingegen "Cato" oder "Brutus": Der geistige Streit fand ganz auf antiker Bühne statt. Sonstiges: Das Thema "Parteien" wird überhaupt nicht angesprochen. Diese spielen heute eine große Rolle, kommen aber nicht vor, was schade ist. - Die Frage, ob die Bürger denn überhaupt demokratisch gesinnt sind, wird ebenfalls nicht gestellt. Davon wird einfach ausgegangen. Immer wieder werden Sätze eingestreut wie dieser: "the people of this country, enlightened as they are with regard to the nature, and interested, as the great body of them are, in the effects of good government" (Nr. 37). Wir nehmen die Botschaft mit: Die Qualität einer Demokratie entscheidet sich auch an der Aufgeklärtheit und demokratischen Gesinnung und Anteilnahme ihrer Bürger.