Federalist No. 39 (1788) is James Madison's answer to whether the Constitution proposed by the convention is truly republican. Finding that common usage applies the word "republic" to governments as unlike as Venice and England, he defines a republic by principle instead: a government whose powers all come, directly or indirectly, from the great body of the people, run by officials who serve at pleasure, for limited terms, or during good behavior. Measuring the plan's House, Senate, President and judges against that standard and against the State constitutions, he concludes that it is republican in the strictest sense, pointing also to its ban on titles of nobility. The paper then answers critics who say the plan wrongly abandons a league of sovereign States, arguing that the Constitution is neither wholly national nor wholly federal but a blend of both.
Original summary for this showcase, informed by public sources including Wikipedia.
Read more: Federalist No. 39 on Wikipedia · Full text: Federalist No. 39 at Project Gutenberg
James Madison (1751–1836) was an American statesman, political theorist, and the fourth President of the United States. A principal architect of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, he earned the title "Father of the Constitution." With Alexander Hamilton and John Jay he wrote The Federalist, a series of essays defending the proposed Constitution to the people of New York. His thinking on faction, representation, and the separation of powers remains foundational to American constitutional theory.
Original summary for this showcase, informed by public sources including Wikipedia.
Read more: James Madison on Wikipedia
Federalist No. 39 (1788) is James Madison's answer to whether the Constitution proposed by the convention is truly republican. Finding that common usage applies the word "republic" to governments as unlike as Venice and England, he defines a republic by principle instead: a government whose powers all come, directly or indirectly, from the great body of the people, run by officials who serve at pleasure, for limited terms, or during good behavior. Measuring the plan's House, Senate, President and judges against that standard and against the State constitutions, he concludes that it is republican in the strictest sense, pointing also to its ban on titles of nobility. The paper then answers critics who say the plan wrongly abandons a league of sovereign States, arguing that the Constitution is neither wholly national nor wholly federal but a blend of both.
Original summary for this showcase, informed by public sources including Wikipedia.
Read more: Federalist No. 39 on Wikipedia · Full text: Federalist No. 39 at Project Gutenberg