FEDERALIST NO.

10 (On Republics and Factions)

To the People of the State of New York:

IN governments by the people, factions are dangerous. The countrys main

advantage is its ability to break and control them.
By a faction, I mean a small or big group that is united and motivated by a
purpose that goes against the rights of others and/or their community. There are two
cures for faction: (1) remove its causes, (2) control its effects. And there are two ways to
remove the causes: (1) destroy liberty and (2) give everyone the same opinions.
The first cure (remove its causes) is worse than the disease. To abolish liberty
because it creates faction makes as much sense as abolishing air because it supports fire.
And the second cure (control its effects), as long as our brains arent perfect, and we are
free to use them, people will have different opinions... Because people have different
talents and abilities the reason some people make more money than others also
prevent us from having the same opinionsIn short, causes of faction cannot be removed
but only (hopefully) controlled to minimize its effects
Because of this, you may think that a democracy, where people govern in person,
cant fix the problems of factionsA republic where people make decisions through
elected representatives offers the cureThe two great differences between a
democracy and a republic are: 1. The small number of representatives elected to
government by the people. 2. The greater number of people, and bigger territory,
over which the republic may extend. The first difference clarifies public opinion by
taking a whole bunch of opinions and mashing it into a few opinions (representatives),
whose wisdom can best make sense of what the country truly needs, and is unlikely to
ignore those needs for doing whats convenient In controlling faction, a large
republic like the proposed United States has the same advantage over a small
republic that any republic holds over a pure democracy: the ability to place many
strong obstacles in the way of selfish majorities
On the other hand, the effect may be reversed. Dishonest men may use trickery,
bribery or other ways to win elections and then betray the peoples interests. This raises
the question whether small or large republics can elect better representatives.
Larger republics are the best choice, because: A. When the republic is small, the
republic must have enough representatives to outweigh the few bad ones. B. When
the republic is big, representatives must be few enough to avoid the confusion of
over-representation. So, if the ratio of good candidates in the large republic equals
that in the small, the large republic will offer more choices and a better chance to
elect a good representative group.
FEDERALIST NO. 44 (on the Elastic Clause)

3. The power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the
government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Article I
Section 8 (18) of the U.S. Constitution (Congress has the power to make all the laws it
needs to in order to do its job)

The Elastic Clause has been attacked more than any other part of the Constitution.
But without it, the Constitution would be worthless. So, people who attack it can only
mean that the way its written is wrong. But there is no better way it could have been
written. There are four other ways it could have been written:
(1) Copying Article II of the Articles of Confederation; not letting Congress do
anything that the Constitution does not specifically say it can do. (2) Try to list
exactly what is necessary and proper. (3) Trying to list exactly what is not
necessary and proper. (4) Dont say anything about what is necessary and proper
and leave it for Congress to interpret.
If the convention used method 1, the new Congress, like the old, would be forced
to interpret the term specifically (a) so strictly that they strip the government of all real
authority or (b) so broadly so that specifically really has no meaning.
Since the new government has bigger and broader powers than it did under the
Articles of Confederation, it would have to choose between betraying the public by doing
nothing or going against the Constitution by using powers that may be necessary and
proper, but not specifically given.
If the convention listed all the powers that were necessary and proper (method 2)
for Congress to do its job), it would have to include every law on every subject to that the
Constitution applies to, making sure to account for all existing and all possible future
conditions.
If they tried to name the exact powers not necessary or proper (method 3) for doing
its job, it would have been just as difficult as trying to list all the powers that were
necessary and proper. If, they had tried to list just some of the powers that are not
necessary and proper, they would only include the ones that nobody would have thought
were necessary and proper anyway.
If you ask what will happen if Congress abuses this part of the Constitution, and
used powers that are not necessary, I answer: the same as if Congress abuses any other
Constitutional power.
FEDERALIST No. 47 (On Tyranny)

Some people say that the way the branches are organized puts some branches in
danger because other branches have more powersPeople criticize this because of this
truth: putting all the legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same branch may be
considered tyranny.
If the federal Constitution were set up in a way where the powers were mashed
all together into one branch of government, then it would deserve to be criticized.
But this is not the case, and those who are against the Constitution misunderstand
how the separation of powers works. To understand this important issue, one must
understand the reasons liberty depends on separation.
The prophet always referred to on this subject is Baron de Montesquieu, (1689-
1755), the philosopher and law expert who helped lead the early French Enlightenment
era. Montesquieu saw the English Constitution as the model that constitutional
governments should follow. (In England) The chief executive (the prime minister) is
essential to legislative branch The judges often attend and participate in Parliament, but
they dont vote on laws.
When we hear There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive
powers are combined, or, there can be no liberty if the judicial branch isnt
separated from the legislative and executive branches, Montesquieu did not mean
that these branches should never cooperate with or influence each other.
The president (in America) with the whole executive power cant make laws,
but he can veto them, nor can he oversee justice (judge) in person, though he
appoints those who do. Judges can take no executive action, though their power
results from executive action (the president appoints judges). Nor can they make
laws, though lawmakers may advise them. The legislative branch cant decide on a
judicial case, but it can remove judges from office.
Montesquieus reasoning on separation also demonstrates his meaning. He says:
When the legislative and executive powers are combined, there can be no liberty, because
situations may arise where we would like to avoid the same monarch or senate making
tyrannical laws and executing them in a tyrannical manner. Again: If the judicial branch
joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the people would be exposed to random
control, because the judge would also be the lawmaker. Were it joined to the executive
branch, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor.
FEDERALIST NO. 51 (On the Power of the Federal Government)

To effectively separate the powers which everyone knows is essential to our

liberty it is obvious that each branch must have a will of its own and be made so that its
members have as little power or influence as possible in appointing members of the
others.
But the best way to prevent the executive, legislative and judicial powers
combining into one branch is to give the leaders of each branch the tools and
motivation to fight off the others Human nature shows that we need to control
government abuses. But government itself shows human nature better than anything else.
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men,
controls on government would not be necessary. The great difficulty in building a
government to be run by men over men is that, first, the government must be able to
govern the governed and, second, it must be forced to control itself.
In republican governments, the legislative branch is naturally the strongest
branch. The way to check and balance power within the legislative branch is to
divide it into different parts we call them Houses and make sure that each
house is as independent of each other as possible. And even these safeguards within
the legislative branch may not be enough.
As the strength of the legislative branch requires that it be divided, the weakness of
the executive branch may require that it be strengthened. An absolute power to reject or
veto laws seems, at first glance, the executives natural weapon or check on the
legislative branch In a regular republic (i.e., without the state governments that is
normal in America), all power to run the federal government is given up by the people
and abuses are controlled by dividing the government into separate parts. In Americas
compound republic, the peoples power is first divided between two governments
federal and state and then the power of each is divided among distinct, separate
branches. This gives the peoples rights a double security: (a) The different
governments control each other and (b) each is controlled by itself.
FEDERALIST NO. 84 (On the Bill of Rights)

Most important of these arguments against the new Constitution is that it contains
no bill of rightsBills of rights began as agreements between kings and subjects to
make sure the people would keep certain rights not given to the king. An example is
the MAGNA CARTA, an agreement between barons (with swords in their hands) and
King John.
It is obvious, then, that they do not apply to constitutions where the
government gets its power from the people and carried out by their representatives.
With the Constitution, the people give up nothing and they keep everything; they
have no need for a bill of rights. We the people of the United States, to secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this
Constitution for the United States of America.
Furthermore, I argue that a bill of rights would not only be unnecessary but would
be dangerous. It would not allow the government to use powers that it is not given
and, thereby, create an excuse for the government to claim more powers than were
granted. Why declare that things cant be done when there is no power to do them?
Why, for instance, should we say that freedom of the press will not be limited when no
there is no power to limit it?...
There is one more thing. After all is said, the Constitution is itself, a BILL OF
RIGHTS And the Constitution, if adopted, will be the countrys bill of rights.
Isnt one purpose of a bill of rights to state and spell out the citizens rights in the
organization and process of the government? This is precisely done in the
Constitution, including various safety measures for public security not found in any
State constitution.
Americans are convinced that their political happiness depends on Union.
Reasonable men, with few exceptions, agree that the present system (Articles of
Confederation) cant save the union without major changes, that we should give the
national government new, wider powers under a different system because it is unsafe to
hand over such powers to a single group.
FEDERALIST No. 69 (On the Executive Branch)

If we compare how public or out in the open the appointments by the President and
an entire House of Congress are with the privacy in the New York state government
with the governor hidden in a secret apartment with at most four and often two people
and if we also consider how much easier it must be to influence those few people, there is
no doubt the governors power outweighs the Presidents.
So, except for his treaty-making power, it would be difficult to determine
whether the President or our governor would have more power. There is no question
the British king has far more power and the difference is more obvious in this
comparison:

The President of the United States would be elected for four years; the king is a king for
life, and when he dies, his son takes over.
The President could be punished (impeached) and disgraced; the king cannot be
punished.
The President can veto laws passed by Congress, but Congress can override his veto;
Parliament (British Congress) cannot override the kings veto.
The President would command the national army and navy; so does the king, who can
also declare war.
The President can make treaties as long as he gets the okay from the Senate; the king
makes treaties all by himself.
The President would be able to nominate ambassadors and Supreme Court Justices, but
he would the okay from the Senate; the king makes all appointments all by himself.
The President can do no favors for anyone; the king can grant citizenship to immigrants
and make noblemen of commoners.
The President has no power over trade or money; the king has in many ways the final
say over trade, and setting weights and measures, setting taxes on trade, and printing
money.
The President has no power over religion; the king is the head of the Church of
England.
What can we say to people that claim these two people are the same? Well say the
same thing we tell those who claim that a government that is run by elected servants of
the people is a monarchy.