This resource provides information on Federalist No. 40. The Federalist Papers were originally newspaper essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym Publius, whose immediate goal was to persuade the people of New York to ratify the constitution.

This resource provides information on Federalist No. 41. This is the first of six essays on the difficulty of powers and federalism.

This essay examines the second and third classes of federal power: 2) “regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations,” and 3) “maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the states.” The former covers the implications of the “interstate commerce” clause. The latter focuses on the remaining clauses in Article I, Section 8.

This essay examines the fourth class of federal power: 4) “certain miscellaneous objects of general utility.” Nine miscellaneous clauses are covered.

This essay examines the fifth and six classes of federal power: 5) “restraint of the States from certain injurious acts,” and 6) “provisions for giving due efficacy to these powers.”

This essay starts the consideration of the second difficulty of power and federalism: is the mass of power granted to the federal government dangerous to the exercise of power retained by the states?

This essay concludes the consideration of the second difficulty of power and federalism: is the mass of power granted to the federal government dangerous to the exercise of power retained by the states?

In this essay, Madison declares that “the most difficult task” is to provide “some practical” security for each branch against “the invasion of the others.” The Madison “correction” of “the founders of our early republics,” is this: Legislative tyranny is far more likely than executive tyranny “in a democracy.”

In this essay, Madison opens with a critique of Jefferson and presents a method of guardian against the encroachments of any one department of government by appealing to the people through a convention.

This resource provides information on Federalist No. 4. The Federalist Papers were originally newspaper essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym Publius, whose immediate goal was to persuade the people of New York to ratify the constitution.

In this essay, Madison addresses periodical appeals as proper and adequate means of preventing and correcting infractions of the Constitution.

James Madison, like most Americans at the time, understood that once a single branch of government — legislative, executive or judicial — had accumulated all political power in its hands, nothing could stop it from acting tyrannically. The checks and balances between the branches built into the proposed Constitution, he explained in Federalist 51, are therefore essential to keep those powers properly separated among the branches. In the midst of explaining these “inventions of prudence,” Madison offered thoughtful reflections on why human nature makes politics — especially the great task of framing a government comprised of men rather than angels — so challenging.

Madison introduces the “more particular examination of the several parts of the government,” with ten essays on the House of Representatives. He organizes the treatment around “five views.” 1) “The qualification of electors” is completely covered and 2) the duration in office is partially covered in Federalist 52. With regard to the former, he says the electoral “door” is wide “open to merit of every description,” regardless of place of birth, “young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.” Concerning the latter, he reminds the reader that “the scheme of representation as a substitute for a meeting of the citizens in person being at most but very imperfectly known to ancient polity, it is in more modern times only that we are to expect instructive examples.”

Madison continues his discussion from Federalist No 52 concerning the duration in office.

In this essay, Madison addresses the total number of the House of Representatives.

In this essay says that the kind of information the representatives need to assist their constituents, echoing Federalist 35 and 53, is knowledge about “commerce, taxation, and the militia,” rather than “particular knowledge of their affairs."

This is the third essay on 4) “the number of which the House of Representatives is to consist.” It addresses the “third charge”: c) the chosen representatives will “have least sympathy with the mass of the people,” and be inclined to “sacrifice” the interests of the people. Madison describes this objection as “extraordinary,” because “the principle of it strikes at the very root of republican government.” The objective, says Madison, is to elect wise and virtuous representatives and then adopt “precautions” to keep them that way whilst in office. The primary method of keeping the representatives virtuous is a “habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.” But “human prudence” has “devised” four “cords by which they will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people”: “duty, gratitude, interest, ambition.”

This is the fourth and final essay on 4) “the number of which the House of Representatives is to consist.” It addresses the “remaining charge”: “the number of representatives will not be augmented” as the population increases. Madison admits, “this objection, if well supported, would have great weight.” But, he continues, “there is a peculiarity in the federal Constitution which insures a watchful attention…: to a constitutional augmentation.” The four largest states “will have a majority of the whole votes in the House,” and since they hold the power of the purse, “the most complete and powerful weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure,” these states can defeat “unfriendly” opposition in the Senate. Madison, in conclusion, warns about increasing the size of the House “beyond a certain limit.” Experience demonstrates “that the countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic.”