Pros And Cons Of Federalist Paper

The Federalist Papers are one of the most important pieces of American Government and history. These eighty-five letters were very significant because they were compelling in inducing states to ratify the new Constitution instead of sticking to the weak Articles of Confederation. The authors of the Federalist Paper’s utilized sensible arguments to clarify the importance of such a change. These authors confronted the arguments colonists were making against the ratification of the new Constitution. After the letters were published in the newspapers, colonists against the change, sent letters back commending the new ideas in the constitution the United States has today. The authors presented the pros and cons of ratifying the constitution and …show more content…
Hamilton wrote a counter to the claims that the president would be similar to an elective monarch which would mean the president has the power to do just about whatever he desires. He points out many differences such as stating that the president is elected every four years while the King of Britain inherits their power keeping their position until he dies, and the king has the power to completely veto a bill while the president also has the power to veto but it can be overturned by the congress. Hamilton explains that both the president and king are commander in chief of the army, but the king has additional power that allows him to raise and maintain armies. The president may only have command of the state militias if the congress authorizes it. The president can regulate foreign affairs with the consent of the senate, but he could not become a "perpetual and hereditary prince" (Hamilton 353). because he is elected every four years. With the Senate’s approval, the president may make treaties, but the King of Britain can make any treaty he so pleases. Also with the approval of the Senate, the president may appoint officers while the King can appoint any one he wants to any position. In regards to commerce, the president is very limited on what he can do, and the King has no limit. Hamilton argues that the Governor of New York would have more power over his …show more content…
Hamilton explains the importance and meaning of the judiciary system and judicial review. He begins by mentioning the length of a term for a federal judge and the responsibilities of an appointed judge while also comparing the power of other branches to the judicial branch. A federal judge’s term is a full life time or when the person decides to retire. Hamilton defends the a life time term expressing that it would free judges from acting according to public interest and political pressure. He states that the judicial branch is the weakest of the three branches proposed in the new government. The Judicial system only has the power to judge, and their decisions are based upon if the executive branch can carry them out. The Judicial branch has “neither force nor will but merely judgment” (Hamilton 394). Force means that the judicial branch cannot enforce decisions made by the court, will means that the judicial branch cannot interpret or change laws based on their political desires. Hamilton explains that the judicial system is the least threatening to a person’s liberty and political rights, but on occasion the courts can treat a citizen unfairly or unjustly. Federalist 78 examines the Supreme Court’s right to declare laws unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s ability to declare a law unconstitutional leads many people to believe that the Judicial