Search

The article discusses the federal tort reform and the need of the Commerce Clause with emphasis to the Federalist Papers. It mentions that former U.S. President James Madison and economists Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalists papers that the U.S. Congress has the power to regulate commerce such as interstate movement of goods. It states that the Federalist Papers support federal products liability reforms that prevent states from selling products through state tort laws.

A correction to a review of "The Papers of James Madison: Presidential Series, Volume 11: 1 May 1816-3 March 1817, with a Supplement, 1809-1815" edited by J. C. A. Stagg and others, in the May 2023 issue, is presented.

The present paper discusses the potentials of annotated corpora in authorship attribution studies. These corpora allow the retrieval of morpho-syntactic information, which may serve as stylistic features, getting beyond the most common word-based approaches. In itself, annotation is meant to contain the structural mark-up, the lemmatization, the part-of-speech mark-up, and the textual reference. For the purpose, the corpus of the Federalist Papers is tested to explore Burrows's Delta from a twofold perspective, lemma-based Delta and POS-based Delta. The experiments come to demonstrate the validity of these approaches for authorial attribution with the finding of empirical evidence to assign, in the majority of cases, the hand responsible for the disputed Federalist Papers, but for paper 55, traditionally considered less Madisonian in the relevant literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents guidelines to the Federalist Papers, which have enjoyed a special reputation as an important source of evidence of the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution. It is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Marshall described it as a complete commentary of the nation's constitution and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth.

The article offers information on "Federalist" papers and constituent power. It mentions that in "Federalist" No. 40, James Madison posed a question whether the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 had been lawfully authorized to frame and propose the new Federal Constitution of the United States. It also states that Madison wrote "Federalist" No. 40 as a response to widespread and persuasive Anti-Federalist claims that the Philadelphia Convention had outperformed the mandate granted to it by the Annapolis Convention of 1786 and the Congressional Act of 1787.

Focuses on the philosophical foundations of the document known as `The Federalist Papers,' by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Philosophical sources that influenced the authors; Criticism of the book by Francis Fukuyama and Thomas Pangle.

The article reviews the website for the Papers of James Madison Digital Edition, located at http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu.

Archaeology’s importance to understanding and exploring difficult histories should be considered an essential tool in the public history toolbox. This paper will explore how the Department of Archaeology at The Montpelier Foundation in Orange, Virginia, interprets the lives of over 350 individuals enslaved by James Madison, the nation’s fourth president. To do so, we use the Rubric of best practices, standards established by the National Summit on Teaching Slavery held in 2018 and published by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in a document called Engaging Descendant Communities in the Interpretation of Slavery at Museums and Historic Sites. This paper examines how the Montpelier Archaeology Department has developed a research and interpretive program that puts the Rubric into practice, making the case that public historians and heritage organizations must robustly engage archaeologists and the discipline of archaeology in all aspects of its research and interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author presents his thoughts concerning articles published in the journal on statesmanship and the psychological composition and character formation of former U.S. diplomat Benjamin Franklin, former U.S. president James Madison, and former U.S. president Abraham Lincoln. He examines the difficulty in understanding the enigmatic personalities of statesmen and alludes to the poem "The Man with the Blue Guitar" by poet Wallace Stevens.

The federal government's response to the coronavirus pandemic raises questions about accountability for a president who fails to competently perform central duties of the office. This paper considers the following questions: (1) Does President Trump's response to the pandemic demonstrate a failure to perform central duties of the presidential office that, even if not impeachable, requires accountability? (2) If so, what does accountability mean in this context, and has Trump in fact been held to account by Congress? and (3) If Trump has not been held to account, what does that suggest for the U.S. constitutional system and in particular the principle of presidential accountability as contemplated by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses about the concepts of Sovereignty and Humanity and puts emphasis upon the role of the sovereign in the twenty-first century. Topics discussed include the primary focus on James Madison with a glance at Alexander Hamilton and Immanuel Kant on sovereignty in republican government; the division of government into three branches, namely the legislative, executive, and judiciary, and an overview of Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, published in 1797.

The U.S. Constitution, as understood by the men who wrote it -- the Framers -- authorized only a limited form of federal government: limited in what it is allowed to do. That power, in turn, can only legitimately come from the People, who created the Federal Government. The said government is merely their creature. The objects on which it may legislate and spend money are strictly limited by its text, most notably Article I of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. The so-called Interstate Commerce, General Welfare, and Necessary and Proper clauses, sometimes invoked in the contemporary news media as giving the Federal Government broad powers, are actually limited in scope and do not give it any broad powers. This is clearly demonstrated by the writings of the men who wrote the Constitution -- the Framers, chiefly James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Their writings, particularly the Federalist Papers, explain what exact objects the Federal Government's authority is limited to, and why the claims of those who interpret the Constitution as giving the central government sweeping powers are wrong. The Necessary and Proper clause only gives the Congress the power to execute powers already granted, and does not give it any new substantive authority. The General Welfare clause (part of Clause 1 of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) is a general statement immediately limited and qualified by Clauses 3-16; and in the Framers' times, "welfare" meant only exemption from any unusual calamity and enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society. The Interstate Commerce Clause only authorizes Congress to prevent the states from inhibiting interstate commerce -- the free transportation and sale of goods and services across state borders -- with barriers such as interstate tolls. Thus, the Federal Government the Framers envisaged -- and created with the Constitution -- was one of strictly limited, enumerated powers. This article starts from the premise that the men who wrote the Constitution knew it best and are the most credible authority on its genuine meaning. This is confirmed further by the writings of constitutional law scholars and by rulings of the Supreme Court in the Marshall era -- rulings which, to this day, greatly influence American jurisprudence, and whose authors looked to the Federalist Papers for the correct interpretation of the Constitution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is common to think that state enforcement is a restriction on freedom that is morally permitted or justified because of the unfortunate circumstances in which we find ourselves. Human frailty and material scarcity combine to make the compromise of freedom involved in exclusive state enforcement power necessary for other freedoms or other goods. In the words of James Madison, 'if men were angels, no government would be necessary' (1990 : 267). But there is an opposing tradition, according to which the very idea of freedom in society entails the necessity of state enforcement. However morally good human beings are, or whatever material conditions they find themselves in, on this view, the ideal of freedom we ought to be concerned to realise is such that it cannot be attained without state enforcement. It follows a priori from an important ideal of freedom that a state with exclusive enforcement power is necessary for individual liberty in society. In this paper, I argue against what I take to be the strongest argument of the a priori kind, which begins from the neo-republican ideal of freedom as non-domination, and thereby in (partial) defence of the alternative, Madisonian, view. Insofar as it is true that some sort of problematic domination will inevitably be present in a stateless society, I argue, the introduction of a state can do nothing to eliminate it. For the state to improve on even an ideal stateless society, it would need to give individuals control over the interference of potential dominators of a sort that could not be achieved in the ideal stateless society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Federalist 10 James Madison drew a functional distinction between "parties" (advocates for factional interests) and "judgment" (decision-making for the public good) and warned of the corrupting effect of combining both functions in a "single body of men." This paper argues that one way of overcoming "Madisonian corruption" would be by restricting political parties to an advocacy role, reserving the judgment function to an allotted (randomly-selected) microcosm of the whole citizenry, who would determine the outcome of parliamentary debates by secret ballot-a division of labour suggested by James Fishkin's experiments in deliberative polling. The paper then defends this radical constitutional proposal against Bernard Manin's (1997) claim that an allotted microcosm could not possibly fulfil the "consent" requirement of Natural Right theory. Not only does the proposal challenge Manin's thesis, but a 28th Amendment implementing it would finally reconcile the competing visions that have bedevilled representative democracy since the Constitutional Convention of 1787. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the circumstances surrounding early drafts of the U.S. Constitution, focusing upon the work of Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson and the Committee of Detail during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1787. The article reviews the chronology of the convention including the debate over Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph's proposed "Virginia Plan" regarding the structure of the federal government and Wilson's relationship with Virginia delegate James Madison. The article discusses the Committee of Detail's review of texts of various proposals, state constitutions, and the Articles of Confederation. The authors argue that the Committee of Detail must be carefully studied to grasp the historical context of the convention's accomplishment.

This study explores, historically and conceptually, the idea of separating governmental powers to institute a system that superintends the legitimate acquisition and exercise of those powers. I begin by unpacking arguments delivered by Publius (particularly, as voiced by James Madison) in defense of the proposed Constitution, which Madison represents as advancing a novel interior strategy for ensuring that limits set down on paper are not overturned in practice. Next, I trace Madison's separation-of-powers doctrine to the essays of David Hume, particularly, the strategy of using arrangements like indirect elections to promote the political-cultural ideals of republican self-government, and to increase the chances that the federal government will be dominated by a cadre of statesmen who personify those ideals. This strategy encapsulates what Madison labels "auxiliary precautions," marking an advance in the proposed Constitution over the models already adopted in the states. As pioneering scholarship by Douglas Adair demonstrated over half a century ago, Madison's conception of how a separation of powers might reliably operate can only be fully fleshed out by tracing its connection to Hume. Finally, I reflect on the conjunctions and disjunctions of past and present in assessing the implications of Madison's constitutional theory for contemporary practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

James Madison believed that religious pluralism would allow religion to flourish and benefit society if untouched by the government. At the same time, he worried that foreign powers might leverage internal divisions to undermine sovereignty, making religious pluralism simultaneously essential and dangerous to a republic. Although Madison believed that state-established religion could cripple a people's sovereignty, he also grappled with the dangers that religious liberty posed to national security—the government's ability to repel internal subversion and foreign assault. The conflict became especially relevant when he accepted his position as secretary of state and shared responsibility to protect the nation against foreign dangers. From the 1770s through his tenure as secretary of state, therefore, Madison matched his passion for religious liberty with his devotion to national security, and he struggled to calibrate policy to protect both. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As cited in Ethel Stephens Arnett, Mrs. James Madison: The Incomparable Dolley (Greensboro, N.C., 1972), 119; Dolley Payne Todd Madison to James Madison, 1 Nov. [1805]; Dolley Payne Todd Madison to James Madison, 1 Nov. [ 1805], quoted in Elizabeth Fries Ellet, The Court Circles of the Republic (New York, 1975), 86; Harold Donaldson Eberlein and Cortland Van Dyke Hubbard, Historic Houses of George-Town and Washington City (Richmond, Va., 1958), 271. Buried in the collection of Dolley Madison's letters and documents that reside at the Library of Congress there is a yellowed piece of paper listing artwork and maps. It is unlikely that Dolley met Melish; it is more probable that James told Dolley about Melish, that the famous cartographer's work was a matter of discussion among their friends, and that she was at least somewhat conversant with his work. See Conover Hunt-Jones, Dolley and the "Great Little Madison" (Washington, D.C., 1977); Margaret Brown Klapthor, Benjamin and Dolley Madison Decorate the White House (Washington, D.C., 1965); Lance Humphries, "The Madisons as Art Collectors and Patrons", in the possession of James Madison's Montpelier; Catherine Allgor, A Perfect Union: Dolley Madison and the Creation of the American Nation (New York, 2006); David B. Mattern and Holly C. Shulman, The Selected Letters of Dolley Payne Madison (Charlottesville, Va., 2003); Humphries, "The Madisons as Art Collectors", 4-5. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the relationship between George Washington, first President of the U.S., and his frontiersman Rufus Putnam. The book "Perfecting Friendship: Politics and Affiliation in Early American Literature" by Ivy Schweitzer is mentioned. Topics discussed are language used in the letters exchanged between Washington and Putnam, social lifestyle of white men, and relationship between Washington and fourth U.S. President James Madison.

This article argues that in his "Party Press Essays," James Madison expounds a psychology of public opinion that is identifiable, but less developed, in his earlier writings. In these essays, Madison explains how a territorial mean, or a "practicable sphere," contributes to a psychological mean that creates a context for the emergence of an enlightened majority capable of mobilizing against an abusive regime. Attending to Madison's psychology of public opinion highlights the political importance of affect in Madison's thought and clarifies his position regarding the appropriate role of the people in a republic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an exploration into the development of the concept of public opinion within U.S. political discourse during the Federalist era. Details are given noting the onset of the term and its impact in public discourse in the late 18th century, particularly as it related to economic political debate in connection to public finance issues of credit and debt. Discussion is offered mapping the correlations between the financial history of the U.S. in the aftermath of the Revolutionary War and the appropriation of "public opinion" into the political discourse of major figures such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

James Madison's midcareer shift from nationalist to Democratic--Republican launched a debate about his political behavior and the consistency of his political thought. This paper evaluates Madison's political behavior by comparing his voting record with the voting record of other legislators of his time. Using roll call votes from the Congress of the Confederation and the first four federal congresses, we show that Madison's politics changed but the change was not atypical. We also provide some evidence for and against various explanations for his midcareer shift. Our study compliments numerous works that use Madison's political behavior as a backdrop for studying the consistency of his political thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]