1.3 Government Power and Individual Rights

After the Constitution was drafted in 1787, each state held a convention to accept or reject it. Supporters called themselves Federalists. Opponents became known as Anti-Federalists. Both sides published essays in newspapers to win public support.

The Federalist Papers were 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay under the shared pen name “Publius,” mostly in New York newspapers in 1787 and 1788. Anti-Federalist writers used pen names too, such as “Brutus.”

Madison's subject is faction: a group of citizens, whether a majority or a minority, united by a shared passion or interest that works against other citizens' rights or the good of the whole community. Today we'd think of parties or interest groups.

His argument goes step by step. First, the causes of faction can't be removed without destroying liberty, and the most common cause is the unequal distribution of property. Since you can't remove the causes, you have to control the effects. A minority faction is easy to stop because the majority can outvote it. The real danger is a majority faction.

His solution is a large republic. Elected representatives filter public opinion, and in a large country there are so many different interests that it's hard for any one faction to become a majority and act together. Madison's line is that you “extend the sphere” to take in a greater variety of parties and interests. In short, size and diversity protect liberty.

Brutus No. 1 appeared in a New York newspaper in October 1787. Its author is usually thought to be Robert Yates, a New York delegate to the Convention, but this isn't certain.

Brutus argued the opposite of Madison: a free republic can't work over such a large territory with so many people. His main points:

• The national government's powers have almost no limit. The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause would let Congress override the states and eventually swallow them.
• The power to tax gives the national government control over nearly every source of revenue, leaving states little to work with.
• Representatives in a large republic would be too few to know their constituents or share their concerns, so people would lose trust and stop obeying willingly.
• A government that can't rely on the people's trust would end up using force, including a standing army.
• Liberty is safest in a small republic, where people share similar interests and can keep a close eye on their representatives. (The complaint that the Constitution lacked a bill of rights came mainly in other Anti-Federalist essays, including Brutus No. 2.)

The Anti-Federalists lost the ratification fight but won a major concession: the Bill of Rights. Their worries about national power echo every time someone argues that a federal law oversteps the Constitution, and Madison's defense of competing groups underlies the pluralist view of politics.