There are many questions here. Pick as few or as many as you want. Find out what your rights and duties are as a United States citizen. If you are a citizen of another country, see what kind of government and rights you could have as a human being. Many of the rights expressed in the Federalist Papers are for everyone, regardless of age, sex, religion, national origin. As a resident of planet Earth, these rights are for you.
If you have any trouble reading any of this material, use your computer’s voice option to have it read aloud to you. If you need help with reading, listen to it once, then try reading along with it the second time. Try letting the words make picture images in your mind of what you are reading. Pictures make things easier to remember. For example:
1. In Federalist Paper 36 paragraph 12 (FP36¶12), what did Alexander Hamilton say about poll taxes? Hint: Go to Federalist Papers.xlsx; open with Google Forms. Turn on the Filter; Click Clear; type the word “poll”; click Select all; then Click OK. (You should also have found two other entries in ¶s16.)
That should bring up about 3 highlighted rows. Read them (preferably aloud), and then write, in your own words, what Hamilton said about them. Then share your own thoughts about poll taxes after having read Hamilton’s views.
If you have Microsoft Office, you can download these Federalist Papers to your own computer. Then copy and paste them into Microsoft Word. That way, you will have a complete copy of the Federalist Papers in one document. (Google docs do not yet allow for documents that large minus a few other features such as Section Breaks and Line Numbering. Hopefully, Google will upgrade these features into Google docs).
In Microsoft Word, replace the Page breaks with Section breaks. Then you can add line numbers, starting over with each section. (Google docs do not have that feature either.) More questions:
In FP22, Hamilton wrote: “there is a probability of an increase in the number of States, and no provision for a proportional augmentation of the ratio of votes.”
Do you think Hamilton assumed that there would be States added to the Union?
By the phrase, “proportional augmentation of the ratio of votes,” do you think that Hamilton was saying that a provision needed to be made in the Constitution to divide the Senate up into districts based on population much like the House of Representative?
Do you think the Constitution should be amended to allow this?
There’s a map on this website https://sites.google.com/site/fedstpapers/ of the United States being divided up according to population. What do you think of something like this for senatorial districts?
Do you think the Census Bureau could do this based on their census data that they gather every ten years?
Do you think this would be a fairer method than letting legislative bodies draw up their own district lines?
Can you give reasons for why and why not?
What do you think the reaction of the smaller States would be?
If you live in a smaller state, what do you think about this?
If you live in a larger state, what do you think about this?
As it now stands, the Senate is controlled by a minority of the people. Do you think that is fair?
What do you think Hamilton meant, when he wrote in FP36¶15 that government is to “guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!”? (If you don’t want to use Excel in Google Sheets, use the Find function in Google docs to find this expression. To get a better understanding, read this whole paragraph aloud.)
Do you think that if government were to provide this kind of service, would it be a general welfare item under the Constitution? (See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art1.asp#1sec8
In Federalist Paper 37 paragraph 9 (FP37¶09), Hamilton talks about the faculties of the mind. What are these faculties? Write them down, and then give a brief description of what you think they consist of. Then write your ideas on how to improve them. (Hint: For imagination, think of pictures.)
Also in FP37¶09, Hamilton used the term “animal empire”. Read all of ¶09 and see what you think Hamilton is saying?
Would you say Hamilton believes in evolution? (This was written before Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species.
Do you think all of life is linked including us being linked to inanimate objects such as stone, rock, dust or stardust?
Do you know what the Bible says about dust? Go to BibleGateway.com. Here’s the link: https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=dust&version=NKJV&resultspp=25
In FP37¶10, Hamilton moves from the natural world to the world of the political institutions. What do you think Hamilton thought about nature, man and political institutions? (These are questions you could ask a science or history, social studies or civics’ teacher.)
Do animal kingdoms have a system of government?
If you have pets at home, how does your family have a system of government to regulate and control what goes on in your household, what you can do and not do?
Is there a pecking order in your household?
Do some animals have a pecking order?
Is a pecking order a form of government? (If you are not sure what a pecking order is, ask Google.)
In FP39¶06, Hamilton speaks of an absolute prohibition of titles of nobility. What, in this short paragraph, is his reason for why such a title is prohibited?
In FP39¶07 about a “Federal Form” and “National Government.” (This question might be more for high school seniors and college political science classes.) The people who opposed the proposed Constitution, wanted to preserve a federal form, which regards the Union as a confederacy of sovereign states. That is how the government was under the Articles of Confederation. Under the proposed Constitution, the Union is a consolidation of States.
What does a “confederacy of sovereigns” mean? (You might want to Google this.)
How might a “consolidation of States” differ from a “confederacy of sovereigns”? (This might be a good topic for a term paper in political science.)
In FP39¶14, Hamilton wrote, “ the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only.”
Since hemp is not an enumerated object, how then can the federal government outlaw growing, harvesting, researching, testing and marketing any product that can be made from hemp, including medical cannabinoids?
Would the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act and the 1970 Controlled Substances Act be a violation of the Constitution since hemp is not an enumerated object?
In FP40¶05, James Madison writes about the end and means. He said, “the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.”
When a law is challenged to the Supreme Court, does the Court look at the means and ends?
Should it?
For example, in 2015, a challenge is being made to words in the Affordable Care Act.
What is the end of this law?
What are the means of obtaining it?
Do you think the law complies with what Congress is constitutionally allowed to do? Why or why not?
After you have done some research, what is your opinion? (These question might be better for law school students. Do not let that intimidate you if you have an opinion based on reason and logic. Do not let your emotions cloud your vision.)
In FP40¶12, Madison wrote that the “great body of citizens…had every reason to believe that the contrary sentiments agitated the minds and bosoms of every external and internal foe to the liberty and prosperity of the United States.”
Are there still external and internal foes to the liberty and prosperity of the United States?
Can you name some of the external foes to the liberty and prosperity of the United States?
Can you name some of the internal foes to the liberty and prosperity of the United States?
In FP41¶10, it says, “A wise nation…does not rashly preclude itself from any resource which may become essential to its safety….”
Based on this comment, would the war on drugs be considered a “resource” that is essential to the safety of the United States? (Read all of ¶10 aloud. To find the meaning of “preclude”, right click on it and select define ‘preclude’. Click that, and the definition will appear in a box to your right.)
In FP42¶05, what do you think Madison is writing in favor of? And, how do you think this might apply to the current immigration policy?
In this paragraph, Madison refers to the slave trade as an illicit practice. Given the large and long open borders of the United States from both land and sea, how should people who come to the United States without proper documentation be classified?
What is an illicit practice? When an individual comes across the border, would that be an illicit practice?
Why or why not?
What if a group of people are carried across the border by any organization, would that be an illicit practice?
Why or why not?
If a religious organization brings non-citizens to the United States, would that be an illicit practice?
If your answer is “No,” then what would be the difference if a 14-year-old boy came across the border on his own?
Would that be an illicit practice?
Why or why not?
Should these children be deported back to their own country even though their parents might be in the United States or were killed in their own country?
If a person is born to parents who came across the border without proper papers, and have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and have two or three children born in the United States, should those children be considered United States citizens?
Should such children be deported because their parents were here illegally? Why or why not?
Does the 14th Amendment have any bearing on the Nation’s immigration policy? (Read Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv )
What does the Constitution say about who is a citizen? (See Article II, Constitution - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii ) (At this web site, use its Search box to look for the word “citizen” and see what else the Constitution says about a citizen.)
In FP43¶03, what do you think is meant by the words:: “The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected;”?
Do you think the “claims of justice” include political and religious opinions?
What does the Declaration of Independence say about opinions?
What kind of opinions do you think Thomas Jefferson was writing about in the Declaration of Independence? Click here to read the Declaration of Independence. Read it aloud. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.htm)
What other opinions might Jefferson have in mind?
Are there other opinions you can think of?
If a new student comes into your classroom who looks different, dresses different, has different beliefs, a different accent, or somehow you just don’t known what it is that you don’t like about him/her, what do you think your duties or responsibilities are to duly and mutually respect that person?
What if his/her sexual interests are different than yours?
What if that person seems to like you in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable? How would you deal with that situation?
If another student is bullying you, or someone else, either in school or online via social media, what is your responsibility to do about it?
Does your school have rules for dealing with bullying situations? If so, what are they? Have you or are you being bullied? If so, have you reported it? If not, why not?
In this same paragraph, Madison wrote: “the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected….”
The original Constitution did not have a Bill of Rights. Do you think that the current Constitution’s Bill of Rights would be considered rights of humanity?
The First Amendment has Americans’ First Freedoms. There are five of them.
Can you name them? If not, go here to read the First Amendment. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rights1.asp#1
In FP44¶01, it talks about the “first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”
What are the first principles of “the social compact”? (Either Google “social compact”, or follow the link in the Comments box in FP44¶01).
In FP44¶04 sub ¶3., it reads: “The election of the President and Senate will depend, in all cases, on the legislatures of the several States.” Currently, most states electoral votes going to the presidential candidate who wins that state’s popular votes. Some other states allow their electoral votes to go to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally.
Do you think it would be a good idea for all states to allow their electoral votes to go to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally? Why or why not? (You might want to Google Electoral College.)
What do think of the Electoral College?
Why do you think it was implemented?
Do you think the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness? Give reasons why or why not.
In FP45¶01, what did Madison call an “impious doctrine of the old world”?
What do you think it means, “the people were made for kings not kings for the people”?
Does our government treat us like we were made to serve it?
Do religions treat us like we are made to serve it?
Do either governments or religions have any right or authority to take our civil rights away from us?
Do we have any right to draw pictures or cartoons of political leaders or religious leaders and founders?
If so, by what right?
If not, why not?
In FP45¶02, what is the supreme object to be pursued?
What do you think is meant by the phrase, “the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people”?
How can government achieve the happiness of the people by providing for the “public good”?
What are some examples of the public good that you can think of?
In this same sentence it is written: “Let the former be sacrificed to the latter.” Writers of that era often used the expression “former and latter.”
If you are not sure what “former” and “latter” refer to, go to the comments section of FP45¶02, and see how it is used.
After doing that, what does “former” replace, and what does “latter” replace?
Try rewriting the sentence taking out the words “former” and “latter.” In their place, put in what each of those words stands for.
Now read your sentence aloud.
FP45¶03, it is written: “the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty.”
Do you think that gives State legislatures the right to take citizens’ civil rights away from them?
Is it a civil right for a person to marry whoever he/she wants regardless of race or sex?
Is it a civil right for a woman to have reproductive control over her own body?
What do you think about abortions?
Does a woman have a civil right of conscience to have an abortion?
Does a State legislature have a right to tell a woman that she cannot have an abortion under any circumstance?
In FP45¶04, it reads, “The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government” but that the federal government is in no way essential to the operations and organization of the State governments.
If a State government tries to take citizens’ federal civil rights away from them are they an essential part of the federal government?
If they do, how are these things usually handled?
In FP46¶05, it says that a lot of errors committed by State legislatures happen because they do not want to “embrace the public welfare.”
Can you give some examples of the public welfare that State legislatures do not want to embrace?
What about drug testing for food stamps?
What about not wanting to give same-sex persons the right to marry?
What about not wanting to give their citizens healthcare or government assistance to pay for it?
What about giving transgender students the right to use the bathroom of their sexual identity?
Do you know who your state legislator is?
If your state has a legislative body made up of two chambers (a Senate and a House), find out your senator and State representative names and email addresses.
If your State has only one legislative body (unicameral), find out who your representative is.
See if you can find out where they stand on issues such as these.
Look for issues that involve civil rights, called constitutional rights, and see if your legislator is trying to weaken them or limit citizens the right to exercise them in your State.
In FP46¶06, it was Madison’s view that the federal government would not likely invade the rights of individual States, yet is not that exactly what Congress did when it passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970 particularly aimed at marijuana?
Do you know what the common name is for this legislation?
Has it had any impact on your community? Your family? Your family’s finances?
Do you consider this legislation a success or failure?
Why will Congress not let people make paper, clothing, foods, fuels, houses and medicines including oral and respiratory treatments from hemp?
Have you contacted your federal legislators about allowing hemp to be used in these ways and other ways when found to be beneficial to society?
Following the word “encroachment” the next sentence that begins with the words, “If an act of a particular State…” what is Madison’s solution?
Do you know what the current situation is with regard to hemp legalization in your State or any other States?
In FP46¶07, what means does Madison suggests that State government have in dealing with encroachments by the federal government?
Does Madison list any legal remedies?
What kind of remedies does he name or describe?
Has your State or other States gone together to try and get Congress to remove THC from the Controlled Substances Act of 1970? (That’s the law that restricts the use of marijuana and other cannabinoids for making products, fuels, medicines, and recreational use.)
In FP47¶02, how is tyranny defined?
If government aided religion, would that also be tyranny?
Would it be an accumulation of religious power in government and government exercising control over religion?
If government were to aid religion with school vouchers, tax exemptions and tax credits, would religion and government be separate and distinct?
Would government then be able to tell religions whom they could hire, what beliefs religion could not promote, what students religion could not refuse to be admitted to their schools?
What does the First Amendment say about religion? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rights1.asp#1
What did Thomas Jefferson define as a “wall of separation of church and state”? http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Who was Jefferson’s letter written to?
What was the year and date this letter was written?
What did Jefferson say about the “legitimate powers of government”?
What did Jefferson say the “rights of conscience” restore to man?
What do you think “natural rights” might include since Jefferson’s letter deals with the First Amendment’s religion clause?
The remaining paragraphs of FP47 deal with the subject of separate and distinct concerning the branches of government. If it is something you are interested in, they are well-worth reading.
In FP48¶02, Madison gives a warning about the legislative department. What was that warning?
Write the warning, then rewrite it in your own words.
Can you give examples of how Congress and your State legislature has extended their spheres of activity?
Do any of these activities violate citizens’ constitutional civil rights?
How does Madison compare executive usurpations with legislative usurpations?
What do you think it means when it says, “it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.”?
Can you rewrite the phrase, in common speech, “the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.”?
According to Madison in FP48¶03, what did Mr. Jefferson say about the three great departments of government?
In “Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia,” what did he say the definition was when all three powers of government were concentrated into the same hands?
What did Madison say about barriers in the Constitution to prevent either of the branches of government from encroaching upon one another?
In FP48¶06, what was the rule about bills of a public nature?
Are bills of a public nature readily available for the public to read?
In FP49¶03, What does this statement mean to you?: “The reason of man, like man himself, is timid and cautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and confidence in proportion to the number with which it is associated.”
What do you think this is saying about the reason of man?
Why do you think this would be said?
Assume you know something to be true, but all your friends tell you that you are crazy, that you don’t know what you are talking about; is that going to have any effect on what you know to be true?
Have you ever been in a situation like this?
How did you deal with it?
In FP49¶06, what do you think Hamilton/Madison are trying to tell us when they say, “But the legislative party would not only be able to plead their cause most successfully with the people. They would probably be constituted themselves the judges.”
Can you think of any instances when either Congress or your State legislature has tried to deny citizens of their constitutional civil rights, or of their safety and happiness?
What about laws prohibiting same-sex marriages or women having reproductive control over their own bodies?
What about public schools being able to teach evolution?
What about mandatory, government instituted school prayers?
What about pollutants being discharged into the environment by manufacturing processes?
In FP51¶02, what was the means by which Hamilton/Madison said the separate branches of government should have in order to preserve liberty?
In FP51¶06, Hamilton/Madison wrote: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”
Can you give examples when one part of society inflicted injustices on another part of society?
Are laws prohibiting same-sex marriage an act of injustice by one part of society upon another?
What about legislation restricting women’s right to reproductive choice and freedom?
What about some members of society wanting the Ten Commandments posted in public places, such as court houses and public school classrooms?
What about some members wanting certain sectarian prayers to be said by public school teachers in public schools?
In FP52¶02, to be a member of the House of Representatives, does a person have to have a religious profession or belief?
What does the US Constitution say about a religious test for public office? Read Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Go here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art6.asp
After reading Section 3 of Article 6, who else does this provision of the Constitution apply?
In FP52¶02, if government were to have a common interest with the people, would making it more difficult for people to vote put an undue burden on citizens?
Should citizens be allowed to vote early?
Should citizens be allowed to mail in their completed ballot?
Should citizens be allowed to vote as much as two (2) months early before Election Day?
Should citizens be allowed to vote online?
Are there any security problems with citizens voting online?
If citizens were to vote online, would having the incoming ballot print out a copy of the ballot be enough of a safeguard to protect the secrecy and security of the ballot?
Do you think either mail-in voting or voting online would make it easier for government to have a common interest with the people?
Should people be able to go to a public library and vote online?
If citizens were allowed to vote online, should they also be able to vote as early as for mail-in voting (2 months)?
In FP52¶05, Hamilton/Madison talked about a sense of liberty’s worth and a proper zeal for its proper enlargement. Should you be inspired to advocate enlarging liberty?
Would same-sex marriage be an example of a proper enlargement of liberty?
What about a woman having control of her reproductive rights?
What about transgenders using the same bathroom as their brain tells them they are?
What if their genitalia suggests that they are of a different physiological sex than what their brain is telling them?
Is it a proper enlargement of liberty for public school students to have age-appropriate sex education?
Would it be a proper enlargement of liberty to allow religious institutions, businesses or individual employers to tell their employees what religious beliefs they can have?
Would it be a proper enlargement of liberty to allow some citizens to harass and intimidate other citizens as a religious liberty right?
Would it be a proper enlargement of liberty to allow legislative bodies to prescribe certain sectarian prayers for citizens?
The President of the United States is limited to two terms. In FP52¶06, it spoke of a well-founded maxim.
What is that maxim?
Based on this maxim, do you think any branch of government has too much power?
What about Congress?
Do any particular members of Congress, of either the Senate or House of Representatives, have too much power?
How many can you name?
Are any of them from your State?
What about the judiciary?
What are the terms of office for the judiciary? If you are not sure, go here and read Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oe-Pnbs2ihotT44nF1UaoeQkDo668SW96bYOUsjLWh4/edit
Do you think the judiciary should have term limits?
If so, what would they be?
If not, why not?
In FP54¶02, it says that taxes should have “reference to the proportion of wealth.”
Does that mean that all of a person’s or business should pay taxes based on how much wealth it has?
Should the wealthy pay more taxes than the poor?
Why or why not?
In FP54¶03, what did Hamilton/Madison write about slaves?
Were they expressing their personal belief, or commenting on the way things were in the 1780s?
It is argued that if slaves are counted as property, then that property should be counted in determining property tax.
What do you think? If slaves were property in the 1780s should they be counted in determining how much tax the slave owner should pay?
But if slaves were counted as persons, could they also be counted for being taxed as property?
If slaves sere counted as persons, then what would they be counted for?
If you were a slave owner, how would you want them counted?
If you were not a slave owner, how would you want them to be counted? As persons or property?
As a slave owner, you would have to provide them with food, clothing and housing. In today’s economy you would also have to pay their Social Security, Medicare, and health insurance. Would you be comfortable with that?
Do you know that the Apostle Paul said about paying slaves? Click here to read what he said. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col+4%3A1&version=NKJV
What does “give your bondservants what is just and fair” mean to you?
Do you think “just and fair” means a living wage?
In FP54¶04, Hamilton/Madison make an argument about slaves.
After reading paragraph 4, can you say in your own words what they are saying?
Which side do you come down on in their argument?
Explain your reasoning.
Would any of this argument make some people change their views on how other people are viewed regardless of who they are?
In FP56¶01, it speaks of an important principle.
What is that principle?
Is your representative acquainted with your interests and circumstances?
Do you think this principle should be the same for your State representative?
What should a State representative do if his/her constituents’ interests and circumstances would violate the civil rights of other citizens?
What are the objects of federal legislation?
In FP57¶01, what is an oligarchy? (If you are not sure, click on the word in Google docs and select “Define ‘oligarchy’”.
What does it say?
What do Hamilton/Madison say about an oligarchy?
In this same paragraph (FP57¶01), what is the aim of every political constitution?
What do Hamilton/Madison say that the next place of a political constitution is to do what?
How do the people hold elected officials virtuous?
What does virtuous mean?
Again in the same paragraph (FP57¶01), what are the means of keeping a government from going into degeneracy?
Do you think it is suggesting something like term limits?
What did FP52¶06 say about term limits?
Would term limits be a good or bad thing?
What kind of term limits would you suggest for the Congress?
What about term limits for your State’s legislators?
What kind of term limits would you like to see for them?
In FP57¶01, what does it say about religious faith for the House of Representatives?
Should religious faith be a condition to be a member of the House of Representatives?
What other three things things should not disqualify a person from being elected to the House of Representatives?
In FP57¶05, what does it say government is to provide for?
What are some things that government should provide for the liberty and happiness of the people?
Does Congress or your State legislature always provide for the liberty and happiness of the people?
What are some issues that you can think of that might not be providing for the liberty and happiness of the people?
In FP57¶08, what does it say about the direct election of governors?
If this principle applies to governors, should it also apply to the president?
Should the president be elected by a direct vote of the people rather than by the Electoral College?
In FP59¶03, what does it say about abuses of power by State governments and the federal government?
Can you give a couple of examples of what you consider to be abuses of power by the federal government?
Can you give a couple of examples of abuses of power by your State government?
In this same paragraph FP59¶03, is the war on drugs an example of an unwarrantable transposition of power by the federal government over State governments?
Give your reasoning.
In FP60¶03, it talks about how the different branches of the legislative and executive branches of government are elected.
How is the House of Representatives elected?
How were senators elected?
How are senators now elected? (Read Amendment 17: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#17
Do you think the president ought to be elected by a popular vote of the people?
In FP60¶11, is “gerrymandering” being criticised?
What is gerrymandering?
Should all elective offices be based on population rather than race or political affiliation?
In FP62¶02,III, it says that every district ought to have PROPORTIONAL share in the government.
If this was the intent of our founders, should senators be elected based on population rather than two senators to each State?
In this same paragraph, it is written: “the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation.”
Does allowing each State to have two senators provide a mixture of proportional and equal representation?
What about the principle of one person one vote? (Read about that here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-person_one-vote_rule
In the Fourteenth Amendment, it says that no state shall deny any citizen of the equal protection of the laws. This is called the “equal protection clause” of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. (See 14th Amendment here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#14
Does this mean that based on the principle of “one person one vote” that all elected officials should be elected by a popular vote of the people?
Does giving each State two senators violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?
If citizens of larger states, based on population, have the same number of senators as smaller states, does that deny citizens of larger States equal protection of the law when it comes to representation in the Senate?
Does gerrymandering deny citizens within a State the equal protection of the laws when district lines are drawn to reflect race or political affiliation instead of population?
In FP62¶03, it says, “the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty.”
The equal vote allowed to each State in the Senate work against the equal protection of the law for citizens?
Would State sovereignty be lessened if the senators represented people with districts of about the same proportional size?
In FP62¶05, it says, “It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents….”
Is it a tendency of Congress to forget their obligations to their constituents?
Can you give a couple of examples?
In FP62¶06, there is a comment about the Senate yielding to an impulse of sudden and violent passions, and seduced by factious leaders into uncontrolled and evil resolutions.
Can you think of any laws or resolutions that Congress has passed due to being seduced by factious leaders?
What about your State legislature?
What about laws that violated the civil rights of some citizens?
Can you give any examples of either Congress or your State legislature?
In FP62¶07, it speaks of “monuments of deficient wisdom.”
Is the war on drugs a monument of deficient wisdom?
What about resolutions authorizing unjust wars?
What about laws violating the civil rights of citizens?
Can you give any examples?
What about some examples by your State legislature?
Why do you think that legislative bodies have a tendency to pass such legislation?
In FP62¶08, it says, “ A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained.”
What is the object of good government?
What is the second object of good government?
How well do you think the United States government does in achieving both these objects?
What are some examples you can give that say makes the United States government a good government?
Can you give some examples why you think it does not qualify as a good government?
Are there other things you think the government should be doing to qualify as a good government?
Are there some things you think the government should not be doing to qualify as a good government?
There are a number of other comments in the remainder of FP62. The rest of FP62 is a thought-provoking read. If you are a student of government it is well-worth taking the time to read it. Also, remember to read them aloud. It appears that writers of that period spoke aloud what they were going to write before they wrote it. Hence, the punctuation differences between then and now.
In FP63¶07, who are the people to check the misguided career of a senator?
Can you name any senators whom you believe have a misguided career?
How would you determine if a senator had a misguided career?
What condition are necessary to regain authority over the public mind?
What are those conditions?
What kinds of safeguards do citizens need to safeguard them from a tyranny of passions of their own government?
Can you think of any legislation by either Congress or your State legislature that is based on a tyranny of passions?
In FP63¶08, what protects citizens from being subjected to the infection of violent passions or the danger of another group of citizens combining in pursuit of unjust measures?
Can you think of any legislation that might be the result of violent passions or of citizens combining in pursuit of unjust measures?
What about measures allowing religious beliefs to be used against someone else’s religious beliefs?
Can you give some examples?
In FP63¶08, what is necessary to blend stability withy liberty?
In the American system of government, what is available to blend stability with liberty?
Can you name any thing or things that you think might impair the ability to blend stability with liberty?
In FP63¶15, the critics of the proposed Constitution argued that a Senate appointed by the State legislatures would gradually become a tyrannical aristocracy.
What are your thoughts on this?
When was this changed? (Go here to read the 17th Amendment: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#17
Has the public election of senators prevented the Senate from becoming a tyrannical aristocracy?
If not, what else could be done to prevent it?
In FP63¶17, it says that the Senate must first be corrupted before it can attempt an establishment of tyranny.
Would you say the current Senate is corrupted?
If yes, can you give some examples?
Do you think the Senate is influence too much by big money?
Can big money be a source of corruption?
The last sentence of paragraph 17 talks about a lot of obstructions could keep the Senate from arriving at lawless ambitions.
What are those four things that this paragraph lists that would be obstructions to lawless ambitions by the Senate?
How effective have these been?
In FP64¶11, what is another name for treaty?
In this same paragraph, the last two sentences, treaties are beyond the reach of what?
In FP64¶13, it says that all States are equally represented in the Senate and by men most able to promote the interests of their constituents.
How true do you think this is today?
Do senators promote the interests of their constituents better than they do lobbyists and the influence of big money?
If no, how could this be fixed?
In this paragraph, how is a weak government defined?
According to Jay, how can government promote the good of the whole?
What are some ways government can advance each of the parts of the members who compose the whole?
Might this idea have been gotten from the writings of the Apostle Paul? Read what he said here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+12.24-26&version=NKJV
Would this be an ethical principle of Christianity that our founders used in coming up with some of their ideas about government?
Would programs such as Social Security, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, Food Stamps, Housing allowances be a way government can promote each of the parts of the members who make up the whole?
In FP65¶01, in what way is the judicial character of the Senate used for?
In FP65¶02, a trial of impeachments deals with what?
Violations of public trust would be called what?
In FP65¶04, what is a trial of impeachment designed for?
What was a trial of impeachments compared to?
What does it say about how the trial of impeachments should be regarded?
In FP65¶09, what warning is given about the demon of faction?
Why do you suppose the term “demon” is used with regard to a faction?
Do you think this is a good use of the term “demon”?
Why or why not?
What does “demon” mean to you?
In FP66¶02, what do we call “An absolute or qualified negative in the executive upon the acts of the legislative body”?
Was Hamilton comparing the trial of impeachments to a veto exercised by the President over acts of the Congress?
Would trials of impeachments be used as often as presidential vetoes?
What is required of the Senate to get a condemnation?
In FP66¶10, what might be some grounds for the Senate to reject a presidential appointee?
Would political differences be “positive grounds for opposition”?
In FP66¶13, has Congress passed legislation that is not in the interest of the public good?
Can you give some recent examples of legislation that are not in the interest of the public good?
What about your State legislature?
In FP68¶04, it says, “The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.”
Based on the comment that “the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes,” is Hamilton arguing for the election of the president by popular vote?
He didn’t say, the “public wishes” of the individual state, but just said the “public wishes.”
Would electing the president by popular vote be a better way of honoring the “public wishes”?
In FP68¶05, the expression “an immediate act of the people of America” suggests that electors should be guided by the popular vote nationwide and not the popular vote of the individual states.
What are your thoughts on this? You might want to read the U.S. Constittuion, Article 2, Section 1: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art2.asp#2sec1
Does it say anything about the popular vote in the State?
Constitutional lawyers might want to weigh in on this.
In FP68¶06, Hamilton says “the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves.”
Does this sound like Hamilton is calling for the popular election of the President?
In FP69¶15, if the president has no spiritual jurisdiction, why then is there a presidential prayer breakfast?
And, why is there an Office of Faith-Based Initiatives?
Has the Office of President moved away from the ideals and intent of our nation’s founders?
Do you think the president ought to be leading a prayer breakfast?
What about religions that do not necessarily believe in praying to a god?
What about non-Christian religions?
Does the prayer breakfast discriminate against them?
What do you think the government’s position should be about religion given all the different religious groups and beliefs that we have in the United States?
In FP70¶01, “Energy in the Executive is a leading characteristic in the definition of good government.”
Do you think the President ought to be an energetic president?
What do you think is meant by the term “energy”?
Do you think the term “energy” is referring to physical activity?
What four reasons are given as the definition of “energy in the executive”?
Can you give an example of how the executive can be active in protecting citizens’ liberty?
Can you give some examples of how citizens’ liberty is under attack by the other branches of government at both the federal and state level?
In FP70¶02, what kind of government is it, if the executive is feeble?
Which kind of government do you prefer, an energetic executive or a feeble executive?
Explain your reasons.
Give some examples.
In FP70¶04, what are the ingredients that make up energy in the Executive?
Does Congress adequately support the Executive?
In FP70¶05, what are the ingredients that make for safety in the republican sense?
What is meant by “due dependence on the people”?
What is means by “a due responsibility”?
Is “a due responsibility” provided by the people?
Or is it provided by the Executive?
Or is it both?
As a citizen, what would be your “due responsibility”?
What would be the Executive's “due responsibility”?
In FP72¶04, what does it say about the “desire of reward”?
How strong is the desire of reward in motivating you to do a good job?
Does this apply to physical activity as well?
Does it apply to your school studies?
Does it apply to all subjects?
If the desire of reward does not motivate you, what does?
Are your own desires stronger than the desire of reward?
In this same paragraph, what is a negative merit?
What is a positive merit?
In FP73¶01, it says that “a power over a man’s support is a power over his will.”
Do you agree with this statement?
Should there be penalties for companies that withhold wages from their employees?
If so, what kind of penalties should be imposed?
If not, why not?
If an employer pays wages so low that the employee has to apply for government assistance, such as food stamps, housing allowance, Earned Income Tax Credits should that employer be fined?
If so, what kind of penalty should an employer be made to pay?
If not, why not?
In FP73¶05, it speaks of an effectual and constitutional power of self defense.
What does that mean to you?
Does the executive have a power of self defense?
What about the legislative?
In FP73¶06, what else does the power of self defense do?
What is meant by the phrase “a salutary check upon the legislative body”?
What does it also guard the community against?
What does the term “precipitancy” mean?
Are there any examples of either by the Congress or your State legislature that would amount to laws that are rash or sudden?
What else does the constitutional power of self defense protect from what kind of impulse?
In FP73¶07, what does the term “a negative” refer to?
Which branch of government has the power to use it?
Do you think this is a good thing?
Why or why not?
In FP73¶08, is says that the legislative is not infallible.
Do you think any government body, religious institution or leader is infallible?
What might a love of power betray one branch of government into doing?
Can you give any examples where you believe that one branch of government has encroached upon the rights of another branch of government?
What is the primary inducement of giving the president the power of the veto?
What is the second reason for giving the president the power of the veto?
In FP73¶13, it says, “that obstructions may come from a quarter which they cannot control.”
In the last sentence of paragraph 13, what kind of activities might some find the veto to be?
How effective do you think the presidential veto is?
Do you think it is good to have?
If yes, why, if no, why not?
In FP74¶03, it talks about justice wearing a face that is bloody and cruel.
The war on drugs had mandatory minimum sentencing laws that locked up people for the possession of small amounts of marijuana for terms longer than what a lot of death penalty inmates would serve. Yet the marijuana users did no damage to persons or property.
Do you think minimum sentencing laws make justice look bloody and cruel?
Are minimum sentencing laws cruel and harsh?
Are minimum sentencing laws just and fair?
Is the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment?
Does your State have the death penalty?
What do you think about the death penalty?
Should the death penalty be done away with?
The last sentence of this paragraph says, “one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men.”
Do you agree with this statement?
Who do you think is more likely to show mercy? The Congress or the President?
In your State, who is more likely to show mercy? The State legislature or the Governor?
Which would you trust more to show mercy?
Explain your reasons.
In FP75¶03, what are treaties called?
What do treaties have the force of?
Where do treaties get their obligations?
In FP76¶10, it says that the “institution of delegated power” implies that there is a “portion of virtue and honor among mankind.”
Does having “delegated powers” really mean that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind?
Explain your reasons, and reasoning.
Do you, as an individual citizen, have a portion of virtue and honor?
Explain what you mean by virtue.
Explain what you mean by honor.
Do members of legislative bodies have a portion of virtue and honor?
If not, can you give examples of either Congress or your State legislature.
In FP77¶04, it says that the power of influence means that you can give a benefit to that person.
What do you think of that comment?
If you can give another person a benefit, does that mean you can influence him/her?
If someone can give you a benefit, can they influence you?
What if that person is a total stranger?
In FP77¶06, what is an aristocracy?
In FP77¶06, what is an oligarchy?
Do you think the wealthy have too much influence over government?
Give your reasons and reasoning.
Is there any way to control their influence?
If yes, give suggestions.
if not, give reasons.
In FP77¶10, it says, “the election of the President once in four years by persons immediately chosen by the people for that purpose.”
Does this sound like Hamilton is advocating for the direct election of the president by the people?
What do you think?
Do you think the president ought to be elected directly by the people nationwide?
Or do you think electing the president by the Electoral College is a better way?
in either case, give reasons for you answers.
Read what the Constitution says about electing the president in Article 2, Section 1: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art2.asp#2sec1
Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution was amendment by Amendment 12. Go here and read it: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#12
Amendment 12, and a portion of Clause 1 was amended by Amendment 20. Read it here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#20
What did Amendment 20 basically do?
Did you find anything from the original Constitution through all the amendments to it about this subject that requires the electors to vote only the popular vote of their State?
Was the Electoral College to reflect the vote of all the people regardless of the popular vote of each State?
Should State legislatures direct that their electors vote for the candidate with the most popular votes nationally?
Does your State do that?
In FP78¶06, it says that judges appointed are to hold their office “DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR.”
What do you think is meant by “good behavior”?
In this paragraph, how is good behavior defined?
In FP78¶09, it speaks of a limited Constitution.
What is meant by a limited Constitution?
Who does it limit?
Does it limit the size of government?
How is this limitation preserved?
What does that mean to you?
Can you give an example of how the limitation on Congress is preserved?
If this kind of control were not available, what would happen to particular rights and privileges?
Can you give some example of how Congress or your State legislature has tried to take citizens’ civil rights away from them?
In this paragraph, it speaks of “bills of attainder.” Look up “attainder.”
What does attainder mean?
Can you explain in your own words what a bill of attainder could do if it were not forbidden?
What are “ex-post-facto laws”?
Look it up in Google. If it does not give you a definition, click on “Search everything.”
Or, you can tell it to “Research ex-post-facto laws.
After you have looked it up, put in your own words what “ex-post-facto laws” are.
This paragraph then says “and the like.”
What does that expression mean to you?
Do you think this should include all Constitutional laws?
Do you think this is a necessary safeguard of citizens’ rights?
In FP78¶12, what were the courts designed to be between the people and the legislature?
Do you think this is a good function for the courts?
If not, why not?
Whose job is it to interpret the laws?
What is a fundamental law?
Whose job is it to determine the meaning of the Constitution?
If the courts decide that a law is in conflict with the Constitution, which one should be followed?
What if a majority of the people like the law but not what the Constitution says about the law?
Since the Constitution was voted for by a majority of the people, should it be the fundamental law of the land?
Should a member of Congress or the President be able to overturn a court decision that says a law is unconstitutional?
Why or why not? Give and explain your reasons.
In FP78¶17, it speaks of the courts of justice as a bulwark against legislative encroachments.
Do you think there is a danger of the Congress trying to take over some of the duties of the President?
Can you give some examples?
What about legislative encroachment upon the civil rights of citizens?
Is this threat enough to give judges a term in office as long as they remain in good behavior?
In FP78¶18, it says the people have a right to alter or abolish the Constitution.
From time to time throughout American history some groups have disliked portions of the Constitution that gives rights to other citizens.
Is this reason enough to alter or abolish the Constitution?
Can you give examples of current issues where some people would like to alter or abolish the Constitution because other people’s activities do not go along with their views?
Do you think these are good enough reasons to alter or abolish the Constitution?
What about a person’s right to marry whoever he/she wishes?
What about a woman’s right to have control over her own body’s reproduction?
Should women be allowed to use birth controls?
What about abortions?
Should people be allowed to believe whatever they want about God, religion, or no god or no religious belief?
Should a person have freedom of choice?
Should a person have freedom of conscience?
Should government be allowed to tell its citizens what they can and cannot believe?
In all these answers, give your reason(s) and explanation(s).
In FP78¶19, the first sentence gives another reason for judges terms being as long as they are on good behavior.
What was that reason?
Can you give a couple of examples of “ill humors in the society.”?
Are there any constitutional rights that you have that you think others should not have?
If so, what are they (or just use one) and explain why you should have that right but someone else should not.
Further on in paragraph 19, it speaks of “the benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”
Do you think that judges always show integrity and moderation?
Can you give examples of any judge, local or national, who has not shown integrity and moderation?
In FP78¶21, what was another reason given why judges should have a long term in office?
What does “long and laborious study” mean to you?
This paragraph also speaks of “requisite knowledge.” What does requisite knowledge mean to you?
From these comments, do you think Hamilton valued education?
Do you think government should be funding public education?
What about government setting educational standards?
Do you think you should know what kind of education you need in order to succeed in society?
In FP79¶02, says, “the fluctuations in the value of money and in the state of society rendered a fixed rate of compensation in the Constitution inadmissible.”
Because the value of money changes, should fixed rates of pay also be unconstitutional?
When Congress gives itself a raise, should it also raise the minimum wage?
In FP85¶13, the last sentence of paragraph 13 says, “We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”
Have we found this to be true?
Can you give examples of State legislatures passing laws that encroach upon the civil rights of citizens?
What about the Congress passing laws that encroach upon the civil rights of citizens?
Can you give some examples? Give your reason(s) and explain.
In FP85¶15, Hamilton says, “A NATION, without a NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.”
What do you think?
Would it be better if there were no national government?
Would it be an awful spectacle?
Give your reasons and explain why.
What about national security?
What about civil rights?
What about religious freedom?
What about the right to form unions?
What about the right to free public education?
What about the right of free speech?
What about the right of choice?
What about the right of conscience?