Federalist No. 84 Analysis

Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, these essays were originally published in newspapers in the late 1780s and aimed to persuade the citizens of New York to ratify the newly proposed United States Constitution. Federalist No. 84, authored by Alexander Hamilton, is a particularly important essay in this collection. In this essay, I will analyze Federalist No. 84 and examine its key arguments and significance in the context of the debate over the ratification of the Constitution.

Background and Context

Before delving into the analysis of Federalist No. 84, it is crucial to understand the historical context in which it was written. At the time of the publication of The Federalist Papers, the United States was a young nation grappling with the challenges of governance and political organization. The Constitution, which had been drafted in 1787, faced fierce opposition from Anti-Federalists who were skeptical of a strong central government and feared that the Constitution would infringe upon the rights and liberties of the citizens.

Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, addresses one of the primary concerns of the Anti-Federalists – the absence of a Bill of Rights in the proposed Constitution. The Bill of Rights, as we know it today, consists of the first ten amendments to the Constitution and guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms to the American people. Hamilton's argument in Federalist No. 84 is that a separate Bill of Rights is unnecessary and redundant, as the Constitution itself adequately protects the rights of the citizens.

Hamilton's Argument

Hamilton begins Federalist No. 84 by acknowledging the importance of individual liberties and the necessity of protecting them. He argues that the Constitution, as it stands, already contains provisions for the protection of rights, and adding a separate Bill of Rights would imply that the government has the power to infringe upon any rights that are not explicitly listed. Hamilton contends that such an implication is dangerous and that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights would undermine the very purpose of the Constitution – to limit the powers of the government and protect the liberties of the people.

Hamilton further argues that the federal government, as outlined in the Constitution, is a government of enumerated powers. This means that the government can only exercise the powers explicitly granted to it by the Constitution, and all other powers are reserved to the states or the people. Hamilton asserts that adding a Bill of Rights would imply that the federal government has the authority to infringe upon rights that are not listed, which goes against the principles of limited government and the division of powers.

Rebuttal of Anti-Federalist Arguments

Throughout Federalist No. 84, Hamilton systematically rebuts the arguments put forth by the Anti-Federalists regarding the necessity of a Bill of Rights. He addresses specific concerns such as the freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments, and argues that these rights are already protected by the structure and design of the Constitution. Hamilton contends that a Bill of Rights would be redundant and would only serve to create confusion and ambiguity in the interpretation and application of the law.

Significance and Legacy

Despite the persuasive arguments presented in Federalist No. 84, the Anti-Federalists' concerns regarding individual liberties and the potential abuse of government power could not be easily dismissed. Ultimately, the inclusion of a Bill of Rights became a crucial compromise in the process of ratifying the Constitution. In 1791, the first ten amendments were added to the Constitution, guaranteeing essential freedoms such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, as well as due process and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

While Hamilton's opposition to a separate Bill of Rights did not prevail in the immediate aftermath of the publication of The Federalist Papers, the arguments he presented in Federalist No. 84 continue to be relevant and thought-provoking. The tension between the need to protect individual liberties and the desire to limit the powers of the government remains a central theme in American political discourse. Hamilton's analysis in Federalist No. 84 serves as a testament to the enduring relevance of the debates surrounding the Constitution and the protection of fundamental rights.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Federalist No. 84 by Alexander Hamilton is a compelling and thought-provoking essay that addresses the debate over the necessity of a Bill of Rights in the proposed Constitution. Hamilton's argument, while ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, provides valuable insights into the principles of limited government, the protection of individual liberties, and the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The legacy of Federalist No. 84 extends far beyond its immediate historical context, continuing to provoke meaningful discussions about the nature of governance and the protection of fundamental rights in the United States.