Take a photo of a barcode or cover
121 reviews for:
The Federalist Papers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay
3.85 AVERAGE
121 reviews for:
The Federalist Papers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay
3.85 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Hamilton wrote the other FIFTY-ONE! I had to read them for my American politics class and they were brilliant. I appreciated them even more after becoming thoroughly obsessed with Hamilton The Musical. An interesting read for anyone interested in his writing or with American history/politics.
Definitely worth the read, though it is tough going in places. I listened to it as an audio book, so that helped. These guys are very persuasive arguers. At least Madison and Hamilton are. Can't say I was too impressed with Jay. I wonder whether they could have argued just as convincingly *against* a constitution...
Among the things that caught my attention:
The authors argue:
-for the power of judicial review. I had been under the impression that at the Marbury v. Madison decision the court had pulled judicial review out of the air. This is not true at all. Judicial review had been anticipated, though it was a contentious issue (still is, I gather).
-for the power of the federal government to tax individuals, though they don't seem to think that this will happen much. In fact they appear to think that most of the federal revenue needs can be met by a duty on imported alcohol. (They also argue that reducing alcohol consumption through such a duty would be a good thing.)
-for the power of the federal government to borrow money as necessary.
-from an extremely pragmatic standpoint.
-that there must be a compromise on slavery for the sake of keeping the nation together.
-from the experience of other countries, ancient and modern.
-*against* a bill of rights (yeah, that one surprised me.)
-that for there to be any government at all, it is required that the people cede to it some of their natural rights.
Furthermore, they are dismissive of arguments that the constitution favors the "wealthy and well-born". What's more, they are dismissive of the idea of there being any "wealthy and well-born" at all.
Anyway, good read. Highly recommended. I'm only giving it three stars, but it's a high three.
Among the things that caught my attention:
The authors argue:
-for the power of judicial review. I had been under the impression that at the Marbury v. Madison decision the court had pulled judicial review out of the air. This is not true at all. Judicial review had been anticipated, though it was a contentious issue (still is, I gather).
-for the power of the federal government to tax individuals, though they don't seem to think that this will happen much. In fact they appear to think that most of the federal revenue needs can be met by a duty on imported alcohol. (They also argue that reducing alcohol consumption through such a duty would be a good thing.)
-for the power of the federal government to borrow money as necessary.
-from an extremely pragmatic standpoint.
-that there must be a compromise on slavery for the sake of keeping the nation together.
-from the experience of other countries, ancient and modern.
-*against* a bill of rights (yeah, that one surprised me.)
-that for there to be any government at all, it is required that the people cede to it some of their natural rights.
Furthermore, they are dismissive of arguments that the constitution favors the "wealthy and well-born". What's more, they are dismissive of the idea of there being any "wealthy and well-born" at all.
Anyway, good read. Highly recommended. I'm only giving it three stars, but it's a high three.
The Federalists spend a whole essay arguing that freedom of the press in a bill of rights is unnecessary, and then ten years later they were jailing newspaper editors under Adams. Almost all of the arguments fall apart with the hindsight of 250 years.
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
No huge into political or lawyer speak, but much of what I know about government and the constitution is much more (lawyered) cleared explained. What I wonder is why this doesn't appear to be required reading (yearly) for politicians. Still, I am glad to have gotten a glimpse into the foundations of our government. My favorites, 56 (my copy 367-2), 62 (402-3) & 70 (457-3).
informative
reflective
slow-paced
The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay - I genuinely love James Madison, but this was actually fun homework! Happy Reading!
I bounced around this text a lot, definitely not reading it cover to cover. Quite interesting to hear our Founding Fathers argue for the points of the Constitution and proving why it is a great idea. I'll be following up Hamilton, Madison & Jay's points of view with a rousing reading of The Antifederalist Papers...yowzer!
Just reread the arguments for adopting the new Constitution. I think every American citizen should read these essays -- along with the Anti-Federalist essays and the notes on the debates over the Constitution -- every now and again to remind ourselves of the genius of our system of government.