Merlino 1Timothy MerlinoDr. Katharine TravalinePSCI 11027 January 2015Federalist No. 84 Summary PaperOur United States of America maintains its foundation through its complex governmentstructure. In 1787, the United States of America needed to form a government that would satisfythe most equal confidence in the two main political ideologies. One group proposed a newdocument of governing rules known as The Constitution. The Federalists had to convince theother major political power known as the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists created a progressiveset of documents known as the Federalist papers to address the Anti-Federalists fears andconcerns of the proposed Constitution. Federalist No 84 was created to address any remainingobjections to the
…show more content…
84). Hamilton details the opposition’s argument further thatindividual states also don’t have a “Bill of Rights” and the common law mimic’s Great Britains(Hamilton, 1). Hamilton’s rebuttal is that the proposed Constitution’s content already coversindividuals’ liberties. His examples include sections like Article 1, section 3, clause 7 involvingimpeachment of office through the trial of general crimes in Article 3, section 2, clause 3.Hamilton literally capitalizes, “TITLES OF NOBILITY, TO WHICH WE HAVE NOCORRESPONDING PROVISION IN OUR CONSTITUTION” (Hamilton, Federalist No. 84).Basically, titles or marks of Monarchy should not and will not be honored. I think Hamilton’smain point is that the Constitution does not have a section with specific rights and libertiesbecause it’s general stated limitations sufficiently cover citizen’s liberties.The second point of contention as stated in Federalist No. 84 is “…the pretendedestablishment of the common and state law by the Constitution…” (Hamilton, 2). In this section,Hamilton is addressing the fear that the Constitution’s specified local governments won’t holdany true political power compared to the central government. Unlike in some previouscomparisons, Hamilton uses Great Britain as an inferior example of stating people’s rights.Hamilton states that Great Britain’s bills of rights like the …show more content…
I think Hamilton’s prediction was correct in some ways. The Bill of Rightshas been challenged, interpreted, and amended continually and does not show any sign ofstopping otherwise. The dynamic interpretations validated Hamilton’s fears but many times thechanges ended up protecting a great population of individual’s liberties.A third point of contention is addressed. The opposition believes no central governmentis needed and its existence undermines individual political power. Hamilton states the purpose ofthe central government and how its existence in rivalry with State governments further protectsthe political power of the citizens (Hamilton, 3). Hamilton clarifies the proposed newgovernment structure will provide a more knowledgeable and stronger voice for all the states.Hamilton states that individuals can not alone understand and communicate the scope of theirState’s political needs. Hamilton argues that knowledgeable representatives will maintain anatural bias to their own States which will provide a stable balance of influence in both systemsof government (Hamilton, No 84).Hamilton’s last argument is a solution for the result expenses and potential threats to thenew system of government. His solutions propose what I think is a main point of struggle
84). Hamilton details the opposition’s argument further thatindividual states also don’t have a “Bill of Rights” and the common law mimic’s Great Britains(Hamilton, 1). Hamilton’s rebuttal is that the proposed Constitution’s content already coversindividuals’ liberties. His examples include sections like Article 1, section 3, clause 7 involvingimpeachment of office through the trial of general crimes in Article 3, section 2, clause 3.Hamilton literally capitalizes, “TITLES OF NOBILITY, TO WHICH WE HAVE NOCORRESPONDING PROVISION IN OUR CONSTITUTION” (Hamilton, Federalist No. 84).Basically, titles or marks of Monarchy should not and will not be honored. I think Hamilton’smain point is that the Constitution does not have a section with specific rights and libertiesbecause it’s general stated limitations sufficiently cover citizen’s liberties.The second point of contention as stated in Federalist No. 84 is “…the pretendedestablishment of the common and state law by the Constitution…” (Hamilton, 2). In this section,Hamilton is addressing the fear that the Constitution’s specified local governments won’t holdany true political power compared to the central government. Unlike in some previouscomparisons, Hamilton uses Great Britain as an inferior example of stating people’s rights.Hamilton states that Great Britain’s bills of rights like the …show more content…
I think Hamilton’s prediction was correct in some ways. The Bill of Rightshas been challenged, interpreted, and amended continually and does not show any sign ofstopping otherwise. The dynamic interpretations validated Hamilton’s fears but many times thechanges ended up protecting a great population of individual’s liberties.A third point of contention is addressed. The opposition believes no central governmentis needed and its existence undermines individual political power. Hamilton states the purpose ofthe central government and how its existence in rivalry with State governments further protectsthe political power of the citizens (Hamilton, 3). Hamilton clarifies the proposed newgovernment structure will provide a more knowledgeable and stronger voice for all the states.Hamilton states that individuals can not alone understand and communicate the scope of theirState’s political needs. Hamilton argues that knowledgeable representatives will maintain anatural bias to their own States which will provide a stable balance of influence in both systemsof government (Hamilton, No 84).Hamilton’s last argument is a solution for the result expenses and potential threats to thenew system of government. His solutions propose what I think is a main point of struggle