The Final Countdown To...

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

The Federalist Papers...

The framework of the American government today-a representative government with a strong 
federal government--was laid out in a series of essays or treatises collectively called the 
Federalist PapersThe eighty-five essays appeared in one or more of the following four New York newspapers: 1) The New York Journal, edited by Thomas Greenleaf, 2) Independent Journal, edited by John McLean, 3) New York Advertiser, edited by Samuel and John Loudon, and 4) Daily Advertiser, edited by Francis Childs. Initially, they were intended to be a twenty essay response to the Antifederalist attacks on the Constitution that were flooding the New York newspapers right after the Constitution had been signed in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787. 

The Cato letters started to appear on September 27, George Mason’s objections were in circulation and the Brutus essays were launched on October 18. The number of essays in The Federalist was extended in response to the relentless, and effective, Antifederalist criticism of the proposed Constitution.


The first 36 essays together were bundled, and —they appeared in the newspapers between October 27, 1787 and January 8, 1788, —and published them as Volume 1 on March 22, 1788. Essays 37 through 77 of The Federalist appeared between January 11, and April 2, 1788. On May 28, John McLean took Federalist 37-77, as well as the yet to be published Federalist 78-85, and issued them all as Volume 2 of The Federalist. Between June 14 and August 16, these eight remaining essays, —Federalist 78-85, —appeared in the Independent Journal and New York Packet.The author of Federalist Paper 51 is not known, though it was most likely James Madison or Alexander Hamilton. The author argues that the Constitution's federal system and separation of powers will protect the rights of the people.  


Read Federalist Paper #51.  Then, in the comments section, respond to three of the following questions.


  1. How does the anonymous author reflect ideas of a republican form of government?
  2. Why is the author so concerned with the distribution of power between the parts of government?
  3. What "check and balances" does the author propose to keep the three powers of the government separate and distinct?
  4. How does the author advocate for protections or safeguards for the rights or liberties of the people?
  5. How does the separation of powers protect minority interests?
  6. Does the Constitution account for all of the possible interests in American society and protect them equally?
Students interested in an enrichment activity may complete the Federalist ReWrite for up to 50 points in their first quarter average.  This must be completed and submitted by 10/25/2013.

24 comments:

Ashley Maloney said...

2. The author is so concerned with the distribution of power between the parts of government because, it will help protect the rights of people and the country. The government was divided into distinct and separate branches, the legislative, executive, and judicial. The division of power essentially means that the governments will control each other while being controlled by itself.

3. The "checks and balances" the author proposes can be created in government and also separate the powers within the national government. Checks and balances are a system based regulation that allows one branch to limit another, such as the power of Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts. This protects one branch from becoming supreme.

6. Separated power protects the interests of the citizen as a individual, and therefore the ultimate minority. To prevent one branch form becoming supreme, protect the minority from the majority and to make the branches cooperate, government systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches(checks and balances). The structure of the government, the parts with their mutual relations, keep each other in their proper places, to protect the minority and equal rights.

Scott Walkinshaw said...

2. The author is concerned with the distribution of powers because if one sector of government had more power than the others or one could not regulate the other then one branch could become to powerful. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution the key concern was tyranny.

6. The separation of powers protects minority rights by having a bicameral legislature. That way The majority could theoretically control all of the house but in the senate the small states would still be able to have equal say.

7. The Constitution does not account for all of the possible interests in American society. This is clearly shown through reserve powers. These powers are reserved for the states. Any power not specifically given to or denied to congress in the Constitution were reserved for the states.

Kiersten Sirowich said...

3. The "checks and balances" the author is referring to is created in the government to double check a law or bill. It is used to make sure the law is constitutional and fair, if it is unconstitutional the law or bill will either be gotten rid of or be unimportant.
6. The separation of power protects minority issues by having a bicameral legislature. A bicameral legislature is composed or based on two legislative branches which shows that they have an equal say.
7. The constitution does not account of all interests in the American society. This is shown through the balance of power because the power leans toward the states.

Alyssa Brana said...

2. The author is so concerned with the distribution of power between the parts of governement because it will preserve the liberty of the poeple and help sustain the rights of the American people. The author believes that the government power should not belong entirely to one group of people because they could easily put their own private and selfish concerns above the rights of the people.

6. The seperation of powers protects the minority rights by ultimately protecting the intrests of the individual citizen. It says, "Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts,interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals,or the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the minority." This means that the authority will come from the society and not be centralized in one particular group but rather in many different sections of society. The "minority" or the rights of individuals will be protected when they are not under a government that contains all the power.

7. The Constitution does not account for all of the possible interests in American society because individual interests are not always the main concern in the Constitution. Although the power is spread through different sections of government, individuals may still feel as though they lose rights in certain places. Such as the amount of power each state has.

C said...

Everything looks good. I really like what I'm reading in these responses. Let's try to keep to standard English and spelling.

C said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Emily Wrogg said...

The author is concerned with the distribution of power between parts of the government because he believed that having an equal amount of power amongst the branches would help to run them more smoothly. Each branch could operate on its own while being somewhat interdependent with the other branches (though no member of one branch could be affiliated with the appointing of members of other branches).

3. The "checks and balances" the author proposed were to allow individual branches to regulate the other's power to prevent a single branch from becoming overpowering. This system does essentially what it sounds like, it is another way to balance authority among the branches of government and make each have the same power in its own section of law.

6. The separation of power protects minority interests by using a method called bicameral legislature. This states that citizens will be represented at the equal levels of power as state legislatives at the federal level. This maintains the checks and balances system as well.

Jillian Murphy said...

2. The author is concerned with the distribution of power between the parts of government because "It is essential to the preservation of liberty." If the power is not equally distributed between the parts of the government, one part may have less authority than another, or be over ruled. The rights of the american people would not be sustained if the power were not evenly distributed.

3. The "checks and balances" the author proposes can keep the three branches of government separate and distinct are a system used to regulate power balance by branches limiting one another. This gives protection so that one branch cannot become supreme over another. This system is used to revise or veto any laws that are in the makings.

7. The Constitution does not account for all American interests because the individual interests and views are not fully taken into account. Some people may have differing views regarding topics discussed within the Constitution. For example, the amount of power held by each state could be an issue of rights for some, but completely reasonable to others.

Jenna Stepleman said...

2.) The author is concerned with the distribution of power between parts of the government because he believed that having an equal amount of power within the branches would help to have the gov't run with less bias and more efficacy.If the power is not equally distributed between the pieces of the government, one part may have less authority than the other, causing a major malfunction.

3.) The "checks and balances" the author proposes can be created in government and also separate the powers within the national government into smaller sub-divisions.The rights of the american people would not be safe if the power were not evenly sent out.

7.) The Constitution does not account for all of the possible interests in American society. It couldn't possibly with all the specific circumstances surrounding what might be good for an individual and bad for another. This is shown even today with differing views on every action the president makes or from a political party.

Ty Sirowich said...

3. The "checks and balances" the author says to keep the branches of government distinct are to elect members different ways. Also, each branch is stronger at something than another. This allows branches to make another weaker because none have the supreme power to overtake and control the others.

6. The separation of power protects the minority's interest because it doesn't allow a branch of government to take complete control over another. One can not simply make a law and have it passed without evaluation from other parts of the government.

7. The constitution does not account for all possible interests in American society because it does not address every individuals interest because the interest of the whole is more important than the few. Some people have different views then others on political parties and division of power.


Cassandra R. said...

2. The author is so concerned with the distribution of power between the parts of government because it is “essential to the preservation of liberty.” This means that in order for the government to protect its freedom, it needs to operate smoothly. Each part of the government must have the same amount of power because then one branch can’t suddenly go out of control and dictate the government. The different parts of the government are supposed to work together to have a flowing government that works properly. If everything is peaceful, then no one will have fights about power for the most part, and freedom can remain in check. They can go about passing their laws with the same procedure every time. If one branch goes out of control, then the freedom of the government is at stake and who knows what could happen.

3. There are “checks and balances” that the author proposes to keep the three powers of the government separate and distinct. To keep the three powers separate and distinct, each department should have a will of its own. They all should have special jobs to do that are different from each other. The members of each of the powers must also not be involved in choosing the members of the other powers, meaning that the “people” should choose them. In “checks and balances,” each of the different powers of the government, executive, legislative, and judiciary, must check on each other. They need to make sure that the power of another branch doesn't become too strong and take over everything, and they to make sure that personal interests of people are a sentinel over public rights. Each of the branches must try and not be dependent of each other as much as possible, or else each of the three powers wouldn't be as independent and separate from each other. They need to balance the power so that they can pass laws through different branches so that they can go through the steps of passing them if they should be proposed.

6. The separation of powers protects minority interests. The article says, “Society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.” This means that since there will be different powers that might support different interests, there will always be someone to back up the minority during the time it needs support. There will always be so many different interest groups that they can’t be united to form a majority. So, each of the powers will protect against one another. The government powers can control one another so that it can control itself. The republic can guard society against its rulers, but it can also guard society against the injustice of the other part. The compound government works to protect both sides of the argument so the minority isn't always insecure.

Julia Pietruszka said...

1.The anonymous author reflects ideas of a republican form of government by addressing its various components. One such component they address is the importance of the preservation of liberty. They implicitly tell the reader throughout the essay (by touching on numerous topics relating to the freedoms of citizens, such as civil rights and freedom of religion) that it is the foundation of republicanism. The author also reflects a republican form of government by emphasizing the idea of self-government, which goes hand in hand with republicanism's rejection of aristocracy or any other such inborn power.

4.The author advocates for the protections for rights of the people by stressing the importance of inclusion. They emphasize that a vast majority uniting in a common interest is dangerous to maintaining a balanced society that doesn't endanger any minority groups. The author claims that there are two ways to get ride of said danger. Firstly, the minority can remove itself from society to safely live in a community on the outskirts of it. Or, ensure that there is no vast majority union, but rather a diverse society that prevents a minority from forming and being ostracized-this is an example of how a republic works. Also, by having a society with various interests, both religious and civil rights are secured.

7. The Constitution does account for all the possible interests in American society and protects them equally-this is accomplished by setting up a republic form of government. By creating a republic, the Constitution includes many different groups and interests, which also means that the only time there is really an overwhelming majority is in the pursuit of justice or the general good of society, neither of which pose a threat to any potential minority groups. At the same time, the Constitution does make clear that having a large republic also means there's less reason to try to pass laws for minority needs that the majority of society doesn't already support.

Dan Robinson said...

2.) The author is so concerned with the distribution of power between parts of government because it is of extreme necessity as its equality in multiple branches would allow no branch to get ahead and become so powerful that the others must succumb to its righteous powers. The ideas for an equal distribution of powers would equally allow the parts running the government to be interdependent with one another and it would allow a smooth operation to occur when passing laws or performing other governmental tasks. Equal distribution would also protect and preserve the liberties and rights that people share in order to keep their own powers from being removed or ultimately controlled as no unfair laws would be passed.

3.) The "checks and balances" that the author proposes to keep the three powers separate and distinct are commonly noticed as a power that one branch could hold over another, which allows said branch to regulate ideas or laws before they could become passed. These limitations help protect the rights of the common people and equally provides a safe way for our government to work. Hence, this system keeps the power from growing to strong in a single branch and removes the total overwhelming ruling factor that seemed to have lingered I the minds of many.

7.) The Constitution does not account for all of the possible interests in American society, nor does it protect them equally because people in general are constantly fighting one another over which person is more correct or accurate in their views, which leads to political divisions and causes some to lose sight in the interests of few, and focus on the interests of the groups as a whole. The Constitution does not directly speak out for such items that some have personal opinions on, but it does have a say in what the people as a whole or a republic may feel and could revoke some of the powers placed at hand.

Liam Flannery said...

2.) The author is so concerned with the distribution of power between the different branches of government because this shared equality between branches will aid in the preservation of liberty. The author believes that all of these parts should derive their power from the people, while having no direct contact with each other. The importance of this distribution lies in the fact that from popular consent, the reigning government receives its power, which is channeled into separate parts; in order to keep balance among the shared power. When one branch of government holds too much power, personal gain would consume the intentions of liberty.

3.) The author proposes many "Checks and Balances" for the purpose of keeping the separate parts of government distinct. They believe that these different branches should be as little dependent on each other as possible. The author also states that each should be separate in order to maintain a balance of power, and limit each branches individual authority so none can dominate.

6. The separation of powers protects minority interests because that present society is already divided into various factions, social classes, and interests that the domination of a combined majority is highly improbable. The government draws its power from the people,which is the society. There power is being derived from numerous components of society, meaning this power cannot be centralized into one majority.

Raeanne Geffert said...

2.) The author is so concerned with the the distribution of power between the parts of government because separation will aid in preserving the rights and liberties of the American people. The author believes that power should not be given to one group of people and that division is necessary in order to maintain equal authority. Furthermore, a government with distinct parts can function more efficiently and justly.

3.)The author proposes "checks and balances" to keep each branch of the government from overpowering another branch. He states that each branch should have its on will power; so as not to cave into the intentions of another branch. He also writes that each should be concerned with the practices within their branch and not outside of their branch.
7. The Constitution does not account for all the interests in American society. Individual views are not recognized, only what is best for the common population is taken into account.Power is equally distributed through the government, but some individual interests, such as the interests of each state are not equally represented.

Janet Collins said...

3. The "checks and balances" the author proposes can be created by the government and distribute the power of the government. The checks and balances system divided the government into specific branches, the legislative, the executive and the judicial. this division of power keeps one branch of government from having too much power and controlling everything.

6. The separation of powers protects minority interests because the power of the government is derived from and dependent on society. Minority rights are protected by having a bicameral legislature where in the house of representatives, the majority has the upper hand but in the Senate, the minority has just as much of a voice as the majority does.

7. The Constitution does not account for all of the possible interests in American society and protect them equally. This is shown by how individual interests are not the main concern in the Constitution, but the welfare of the people as a whole. The Constitution does make clear that having a large republic means that there is less of a reason to try to pass laws for minority needs that the majority of society may or may not already support.

Pat Tucker said...

2) The author is so concernedwith the distribution of power between the parts of government because it wilk help the rights of the people. With the separation between the parys of government there is equal power between the branches.

3) The "checksand balances" the author proposes were tho serve the purpose of dividing power betwwen the different branches of the government. The power that was divided was between the legislative, judicial, and the executive branches

6) The separation of government protects theminority interests because it allows them to have as much a vote as other people. They are able to have the right to have a say in things that most aren't able to

Pat Tucker

Anastasija Cupic said...

1. The author reflects ideas of a republican form of government. When saying that everyone's rights are equally protected and that decisions are made based on "justice and the general good" not on the interests of the minority, or even the majority. This is called the Republican Cause.

2. The author is so concerned with the distribution of power between the parts of the government because this will ensure that one part of the government does not become stronger than the others. The author believes with even distribution of power the government will be close to foolproof from the possibility of tyranny while also protecting from a 'mobocracy', which is exactly what the Constitution set out to do.

6. The seperation of powers protects minority interests because it would hopefully provide a government "which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful". With Republicanism, people are urged to work for the good of the people, not the individual. The same applies to the government; they have to do what is good for the people, not just what the majority or minority wants, so everyone's interests are protected.

Jesica Litwa said...

2. The author is so concerned with the distribution of power between the parts of government because he believed that the government had to be divided into separate branches in order to cooperate properly and for it to run correctly. Also, the author believed that if the government consisted of only on large group of people, people would give mean opinions and judgments based on the government.

6. The separation of powers protects minority rights by having a part of the government called a bicameral legislature. This legislature has has two legislative branches which gives the government an equal say.

7. The constitution does not account for all of the possible interests in american society because in the constitution, individual interests are not as important as a whole governments would be. Each individual may not have as many rights compared to how many each state would have.

Emily Curina said...

2. The author seems to be very concerned with the distribution of power amongst the government, as they said "it is evident that each department should have a will of its own.. which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty." By this, the author means that in order for the government to run and operate to the best that it can, each part needs to be equally powerful and that one section can't have more power or over rule another. The author believes that this is key to the government regulating and to the continued protection of the peoples rights.

3. The "Checks and balances" the author proposes to keep the three powers of the government separate and distinct are a regulation that allows branches to limit each other. This would allow for laws and bills to be overseen and reviewed before being published. This would keep laws constitutional and keep power balanced among the branches, keeping one branch from becoming superior in the government.

7. The Constitution most definitely does not account for all the possible interests in the American society or protect them equally. This is because individual interests are not really shown or concerned by the Constitution. Many individuals may have different thoughts about topics like the distribution of power amongst the states, but they aren't exactly acknowledged.

Abby Furfaro said...

2. The author is so concerned about the distribution of power between the parts of the government because it protects the rights of the people and their country. There are 3 branches, legislative, executive, and judicial. if one of these branches is dominant over the others, they could potentially put their own needs first before the needs of the people and for the common good of the people. Equality and separation of power between the branches protects the rights of the people.

3. The "Checks and Balances" are to keep the branches of government separate from each other, and to keep them form having too much or too little power. it keeps one branch from being dominant or dependent over another group.

6. the separation of powers protects the minority interests meaning the interests of the people. It protects the minority from the majority by having a bicameral legislature, giving each branch, and all people and equal say. it basically ensured the rights of equality and balances the power of the branches using checks and balances.

Alexa Fryc said...

2.) The author is concerned with the distribution of powers because he knows that if only one person had all power instead of having more than one person making a decision together,then it wouldn't work. Also, simple american rights towards people would be violated and that one person would be dangerously too powerful.
3.) The term "checks and balances" means that the author talks about means the process of checking to see if a law or bill is fair and valid to be made official. This would be done through all 3 branches making sure not they all stay equally powerful.
7.) The constitution does not account for all of the peoples possible interests because they need to make sure that they are doing the best for the states as a whole, not just individuals. Everyone has their own say about the constitution laws and statements and it just wouldn't work if they looked at what everyone has to say.

Coray Marchetti said...

1. The author reflects ideas on a republican form of government by mentioning many republican values. In his article he mentions "the preservation of liberty" in which liberty is a big republican value. He also mentions how the primary control of the government is dependent on the people which is another core republican value. The author also speaks upon the rights of a person which yet again is a big republican value.

2. The author is concerned about the distribution of power because he has seen what a country was like ran by one authoritative leader, and it turned out to be a mess in which the colonists wanted to break away from. He knows that one person as a leader is way too powerful and would probably make poor decisions due to their extreme extent of power. The author knows that if the power gets distributed it should be evenly so that it would not turn out like a monarchy again.

3. The "checks and balances" that the author proposes to hopefully keep the three powers of government separate and distinct is a set rule for each branch to follow so that not one branch is over ruling the other and that they are all equal. This system not only makes it fair but also helps to create a strong government with all equal branches that propose laws that either everyone will agree on or it won't be passed.

Zachary Wiacek said...

2. The author is so concerned with the distribution of power between the parts of government because the power in government needs to be split between the three branches of government equally. By the power of the government being split evenly, no one person in the government can abuse the power and make selfish decisions for him/herself.

3.The "checks and balances" that the author refers to allow the branches of government to split their power evenly so no branch is more powerful than another. If power was greater in one of the branches, conflict may arise in the government and can affect the lives of U.S. citizens negatively.

7.The Constitution does not account for all of the possible interests in American Society because the interests of individual citizens are not noted in government. The government is concerned about what they think is best for the general population. They however should note the concerns of the individual states and their people.