The Easy Federalist

The Federalist 84:

Written by Alexander Hamilton

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

Throughout this review of the constitution, I have tried to answer most of the criticisms that have been made against it. There are still a few that either did not fit into any one particular topic or were forgotten when they should have been addressed. I will discuss them now, but because the topic has become so long, I will try to be brief and talk about all these miscellaneous points in just one paper.

The main objection to the plan of the convention is that it has no bill of rights. It has been noted that the constitutions of some states, like New York, don’t have a bill of rights either. Despite this, the people who oppose the new system here in New York love our constitution. To explain their strong opinion, they say two things. First, that our constitution provides certain rights and privileges, even without a bill of rights. And second, that the constitution adopts the laws of Great Britain, which guarantee many more rights, even if they’re not written down.

I answer the first question by saying that the constitution proposed by the convention has many of the same provisions as the constitution of this state.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution states that if someone is impeached, the punishment will only be removal from office and disqualification to hold any office in the United States. Section 9, Clause 2 of the same article states that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus will not be suspended unless there is a rebellion or invasion and the public safety requires it. Clause 3 says that no bill of attainder or ex post facto law can be passed. Clause 7 states that no title of nobility can be granted by the United States and no person in office can accept any presents, money, office, or title from any foreign state without the consent of Congress. Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 states that all crimes, except those related to impeachment, will be tried by jury in the state where the crime was committed. Section 3 of the same article says that treason against the United States is only committed if someone levies war against them or gives aid and comfort to their enemies. No one can be convicted of treason unless two witnesses testify to the same act or the person confesses in court. Clause 3 states that Congress can declare the punishment for treason, but an attainder of treason cannot cause corruption of blood or forfeiture unless it is during the person’s lifetime.

Is it just as important to have provisions in our constitution like the writ of habeas corpus, a prohibition on ex post facto laws, and no titles of nobility as it is to have other provisions in our constitution? These three things may actually be better for protecting liberty than anything else. In the past, tyrants have abused their power by punishing people for things that weren’t illegal when they did them, and by illegally arresting them and putting them in jail. Famous lawyer Blackstone said that imprisoning someone secretly in jail was even more dangerous than taking away their life or property. To prevent this, he praised the habeas corpus act, which he called the “bulwark of the British constitution.”

The importance of not using titles of nobility is clear. This is the foundation of a republic, as long as these titles are banned, there is no chance that the government will be anything other than a government of the people.

I answer that the common and statute law are subject to changes and provisions that the legislature makes. They can be changed or taken away by the normal legislative power, and have no protection from the constitution. The declaration was there to recognize the old law and to clear up any questions because of the revolution. This is not a part of a declaration of rights, which is meant to limit the power of the government.

It has been said many times that bills of rights are agreements between kings and their subjects. The Barons got Magna Carta from King John using swords. Later kings accepted the charter. Charles the First agreed to the Petition of Right. The lords and commons presented the Declaration of Right to the Prince of Orange in 1688; then it became the Bill of Rights. So, these types of bills do not work with a government based on the people. The Constitution of the United States of America is better for protecting people’s rights. It’s better than the many sayings in some state bills of rights which would be better used in a book about ethics than a government document.

A small detail concerning certain rights may not be as important when it comes to a constitution that is just meant to manage the nation’s political matters, compared to one that controls every kind of personal and private matters. If people are correct in their complaints against the plan of the convention, then no words will be harsh enough to describe the constitution of this state. But the truth is, both of them have everything that is reasonable in regards to their topics.

I think that bills of rights are not needed and could be dangerous in the proposed constitution. You can’t say that certain things can’t be done if there is no power to do them. For example, why say that the press should not be restrained when there is no power to do that? This could be used as an excuse for claiming more power than is given. A bill of rights could give people the idea that the government has the power to make rules about the press, even though it isn’t given that power. This is just one example of how bills of rights can be misused.

There has been a lot said about the liberty of the press. But, the constitution of this state does not mention it. Even the declaration that the press should be kept safe in other states does not mean much. What does the liberty of the press mean? It is hard to define. So, the only way to keep it safe is to pay attention to public opinion and the way people and the government think. This is the only real way to protect our rights.

The truth is that the Constitution, if adopted, will be like a bill of rights for the whole country. It makes sure that citizens have certain political privileges and that they are protected in private matters. The Constitution has safeguards for security that you won’t find in any state Constitution. So, it doesn’t matter how the rights of the citizens are listed, as long as they are in the Constitution. All of this talk about a lack of a bill of rights is just about words, not the real issue.

People who oppose the idea of a national government often say that it would be hard for constituents to know what their representatives are doing because the government would be too far away. This argument actually supports the idea that there should be no government at all. But this isn’t true. People who live far away can still find out what their representatives are doing. They can get information from the public, from newspapers, from talking with their representatives, and from people who live near where the representatives are.

It is clear that the same sources of information will be available to people about their representatives in the national government. Distance can make communication difficult, but the state governments will help. The executive and legislative bodies of each state will act like sentinels, watching the national government and keeping the people informed. The people can trust that these state governments will tell the people about anything that might harm the community. We can be sure that the people will know more about their national representatives than they do now about their state representatives.

It is important to remember that the people who live close to the government will have the same interests as those who live far away when it comes to things that affect everyone’s freedom and well-being. They will sound the alarm when something bad is happening and will show who is responsible. News will travel quickly to even the most distant parts of the country through the newspapers.

Many people have had objections to the proposed constitution, but the most unbelievable and least believable one is that it does not provide for the debts owed by the United States. People have accused this of being a way to forgive those debts, but this is not true. It just shows how little people know or how dishonest they are. Besides my other comments on this, it is obvious that common sense and political law both say that when the form of a country’s government changes, they do not lose their rights or be freed from their obligations.

The expense of the proposed government is an objection. Most people think that union is necessary for their happiness and that changes need to be made. This means that the government needs to be different and more powers need to be given to it. To do this, the government needs to be bigger. The first size of the government will be 65 people, the same as the current one. This number will increase as the population does. Even the original size is not safe, and it would be too small for a more advanced population.

Where does the fear of increased costs come from? One source suggests it is due to the increased number of government offices. Let’s take a closer look.

It is clear that the same government departments are needed now and when the new government starts. There is a Secretary of War, a Secretary of Foreign Affairs, a Secretary of Domestic Affairs, a Board of Treasury with 3 members, a Treasurer, assistants, clerks, etc. All these jobs are necessary in any type of government. Under the new system, ambassadors and other officials in foreign countries will have more respect and their jobs will be more useful. To collect taxes, there will be national officers instead of state officers, so it won’t cost any more.

Where can we find the extra money needed to make the account so huge? The main thing that comes to mind is supporting the judges of the United States. I don’t need to include the president in this because there’s already a president of Congress whose expenses are probably close to what the president of the US would need. How much the judges need will depend on the plan decided on, but no matter what, it won’t be a lot.

Now let us look at what can balance out any extra cost that might come with having the new government. One thing we see is that a lot of what Congress does now will be done by the president. This includes dealing with foreign matters, which will be discussed between the president and the Senate and then need to be agreed upon. This means that the Senate and the House of Representatives won’t need to meet for as long. We can guess that the House will meet for about a fourth of the year and the Senate for a third or half. The extra work of treaties and appointments can keep the Senate busy. This means that until the House of Representatives increases in size, there will be a cost savings from the difference in how long Congress meets now and how long it would meet in the future.

The United States government has been taking up a lot of time in state legislatures, with more than half their time being spent on matters relating to the United States. But now, under the proposed gov’t, the Congress will take care of the United States business themselves. This means that the state legislatures will only have to focus on their states, and won’t have to meet as often as before. This will be a big time saver and will offset any extra costs of the new system.

The outcome of these observations is that there are fewer extra costs from making the proposed constitution than people would think. These costs can be evened out by savings from other places. It is hard to tell which side of the scale will be heavier, but it is certain that a cheaper government would not be able to do the tasks of the union.

---