october 1787 and by the end of 1787, several states had already adopted the constitution before half of the federalist papers had been written. none of the people in georgia or delaware had read the vast majority of those papers. i do not think it is possible to say the federalist papers convince people to vote in a particular way. there are too many logical steps to draw that conclusion. in the long run, it has been tremendously influential, especially in the supreme court. in all of the early cases, chief justice marshall refer to them as being the pinnacle of being an explanation of the constitution.

can the states impose additional restrictions on who can run for congress? can the federal government required the state officers to enforce federal laws? the supreme court has looked at the federalist papers and taken understandings from them and decided the cases. it would be impossible to say they have not had an influence. >> let's hear from our viewers. gabriel from durham, north carolina. >> thank you so much for this. this is excellent. my question is about -- the first question has to do with the influence of the federalist papers on each of the individuals writing based on classic is him on that time, like montesquieu.

or if you think it was intertwined. the second question is, would you be able to share with us what you thought their biggest contribution was for each writer? i wanted to get your view on those two things. >> thank you for that. classicism and the three writers

biggest influence. >> it is remarkable how much medicine knew about antiquity -- how much madison knew about antiquity and ancient government. when he goes through one historical setup facts after another, it is almost too much for people who have not had that kind of education to understand all of the points he has made. the difficulty was that they were trying something new and they wanted to convince the public that this would work. and they had to draw from historical examples. it was not easy to come up with things that were comparable because most of the republics had been very small prior to this bid proposal.

so theyon erything they knew about. i do not know how persuasive it was to the average person but it is impressive looking at it now. >> these gentlemen were very well-educated in the classics. montesquieu was probably the most weighted -- read. montesquieu is very influential. just a few years after writing the federalist papers, madison wrote an essay on montesquieu. he disagrees with him on some things. he thinks montesquieu gave up on popular government too quickly.

madison also thinks that civic education is important. educating the minds of the citizenry. he thinks montesquieu gave up on that and thought it was a task for the ancients. and so in that sense, there is a breaking away from some of the modern thinkers. >> i am going to read from federalist number 39, james madison. is this in any ce radical at the time it is evident that no otherorm would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of america, with the fundamental principles of the revolution, or with that

honorable determination which animates every voter you freedom. >> in article 39, madison was talking about principles of republicanism. he wanted to show that all of the elements of the federal government was fit within these principles of republicanism. he had to explain how republicanism differed from other forms of government and how it would just -- best allow the new government to succeed. points that he made was that everybody in the government should be selected by the people, that everybody should have a term limit or be subject to a term by good behavior. he went through and discussed

how congress, the president and even the courts would be able to behave in this way. what were the strengths and weaknesses of madison and hamilton? hamilton was a lawyer. when you look at the numbers from the 50's, 60's and 70's where he discusses what each provision of the constitution does, that is hamilton's -- strength. >> let's take ellen in east chicago, indiana. you are on books that shaped america. >> thank you for accepting my call. my question is not as deep as the other guy.

you said the man who wrote the federalist papers were not in favor of a bill of rights, but somehow it did get in there. what was the meaning of the second amendment? my understanding the second and third amendment came out at the same time and involve the protection of the states. they were housing troops in people's homes. my understanding it was maybe for the protection and security of the states. and the third amendment being we do not want to house troops in our homes. >> let's get a response.

any response for alan? >> you ask a good question. the problem madison and hamilton had is the constitution that was produced did not have a bill of rights. this was not something that completely escaped the constitutionalonvention. george mason thought there should have been a bill of rights. but here they had to defend this constitution even though it did not have a bill of rights. they made some arguments for why a bill of rights was not necessary. they are not the strongest arguments, but they had to say something. ultimately, i think they came up with a good compromise which is we will ratify the constitution and then add the bill of rights. what about the meaning of the second amendment? the second amendment was not added until after the debate over the constitution, so you will not find any discussion of

that in the federalist papers. you have to look at other historical sources. >> i was getting the idea that lynn was intimating that state's rights had an issue to play in the bill of rights. >> i am not exactly sure, but it is a good question about the second amendment, what is its meaning? i would leave it to other scholars. whether it is to protect individual rights or if you have standing armies, you need a well-established militia. allen also referred to quartering troops.

a man's home is his castle, right? so there is of the idea that individual rights is throughout the bill of rights. my own understanding is that the second amendment is not replaced by a standing army. but that is an individual right. but that is something i leave to the experts. >> we spent time talking about alexander hamilton, james madison, john jay. but first, we want to show you a walking tour of new york city, where alexander hamilton wrote his essays. ben rubin is our guide. >> i am coming to you from wall

street in new york city. we are standing outside 57 wall st, the site of alexander hamilton's home and law office in the months following his attendance at the constitutional convention in philadelphia. after the document was drafted, he returned home to new york and began the work of getting it ratified in his home state. teaming up with john jay they wrote a series of essays under the shared pen name publius, which would be published in newspapers to convince new yorkers to ratify the constitution. i am standing on the corner of wall street and broad street. i had of me is the site of the new york stock exchange, but behind me is the side of the first u.s. capitol after the constitutional convention. in the fall of 87, the capitol

moved here from philadelphia. one of the delegates was james madison, who himself had been one of the principal architects of the constitution. it was at the convention in philadelphia where hamilton and madison had first become acquainted. it was hamilton who suggested to jay that madison as a virginian with a unique perspective on the constitution to be brought in as the third author of the federalist. standing in hanover square which in 1787 what had been eight bustling commercial area. this was also known as printing house square for the large number of printers who took up residence on the outskirts of the square. this is where many new yorkers would have been exposed to the federalist papers for the first time.

they were published sequentially in three newspapers, a new york packet, the independent journal from october 1787 until august 1788. we are standing outside fraunces tavern which has been here since 1719. by the time the papers were published, it was one of the most reputable taverns and would have been well known to hamilton personally as he had been a member of the new york sons of liberty before the revolution who had held their meetings here. this is also the site of george washington's farewell to the continental army in 1783. because they drew from a wide swath of social classes in new york city, taverns like this one and coffee shops around the city served as one of the principal venues for conversation and debate about the federalist and

anti-federalist papers. >> we are looking at the tour of new york city. it sounds to me like there was political intrigue between john jay and alexander hamilton and then james madison when they got to philadelphia. >> it could very well be the case. we do not know everything about it. madison wrote a letter explaining some of the creation of the federalist papers and they asked others as well to join them, but were turned down. the interesting thing about that is that they also had day jobs while they are still cranking out two essays per week for seven months. it is really remarkable what

they were able to accomplish. they did not have a lot of time to coordinate. they did not get to read each other's essays before they were printed. they had a general outline. if they came out a little bit different, that is just how they came out. >> so basically, no email. >> certainly not. >> did this ever get published in a book, all of these essays that were printed in the new york newspapers? >> yes, and that book is called the federalist, first published in 1788. they had to write their own essays. the first federalist paper was published october 27th, 1787. within the week before that, sarah jay, john jay's wife

through a dinner party in new york at their home, westchester county. it was all men. among the men there was alexander hamilton and james madison. i would have liked to be a fly on the wall at the dinner party to hear what the three of them might have talked about. >> was this book the a bestseller? -- the federalist a bestseller? >> i do not know how many copies it sold. maybe the judge knows. >> it was printed in two volumes. it was published in march. the second volume was published at the end of may. the printer printed 500 copies and it was not a bestseller

because we know that fall, the printer wrote a letter complaining he still had hundreds of copies unfold. initially it was not, but if you are lucky enough to have one of the original 500, you are in very good luck today. >> there was this term that became used in the federalist papers. federalist 51, james madison, checksalances. ambition must be made to counteract ambition. the interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. it may reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. at is government itself but the greatest of all reflections

on human nature. if men were angels, no government would be necessary. was this a pretty novel idea at the time? >> i do not think it was a novel idea, but i do not think it had been articulated quite as clearly, especially the idea that if men were angels, no government would be necessary. he went on to speak about what was required to make sure the government could govern the people and also govern itself. and having separation of powers. having federalism, both state governments and federal governments. concepts of having different bodies elect the president and select the judges and the senate

and the house. all of those things were thought to put controls on this possibility that faction would cost the government to be harmful. >> let's hear from george in new york city. >> thank you to c-span for this wonderful program. my question deals with the fundamental principle enshrined in the constitution that no person is above the law. apart from the immunity granted by article one, clause six of the u.s. constitution, which grants legislators immunity, do the federalist papers speak to the question of immunity of the president of the united states or of judges, or do the federalist papers speak as to the question of immunity more broadly that can give us some guidance today? >> they do not speak expressly

to those topics, at least not to my knowledge. when those cases have come up at the supreme court, they had to look at other sources. presidential privilege, immunity , all of these have been established by the supreme court to some extent. you cannot find them expressly in the text of the constitution. there is the speech and debate clause for congress, but there is nothing comparable. similar to judicial immunity. they thought of judges the way judges were thought of at the time and there was judicial immunity there. you are right that these things were not in the constitution and to my knowledge they are not discussed in the federalist papers. i would have to study that specific question more clearly but i do not recall anything

specifically about them. >> given his question about the timeliness, let us bring in caroline feddersen, a law professor. she joins us now. our last caller asked about the timeliness of the federalist papers. what do they mean in your view? >> i am speaking as a law professor and how relevant they are to the teaching of constitutional law. what i think is so helpful is to have the students read the federalist papers while they are starting to dig into the structure of the constitution and get a more theoretical framework about what the framers were trying to achieve for separation of powers and federalism. and bring in that into the

conversation. so many of us grew up knowing that is the structure we have and do not really dig deep. the rich argumentation provided in the papers is a wonderful opportunity to have a discussion around what they were thinking, why they put the constitution together the way they did. and also, whether it has been a successful project. >> in your view, has it been successful? >> by and large, we are still here. we are still a nation that continues to have a fairly robust democracy, a democracy that has gotten much stronger since the founding. there were a lot of flaws that have to be discussed in the initial constitution, grave problems.

we have been making improvements all along the way they have made the country a much better country when we look at the reconstruction amendments and the description of that as the second founding, the birth of a new nation after the civil war and the end of slavery. so i think yes, but is my answer. >> when you teach the federalist papers, what is the first lesson for your students? >> trying to understand the whole argument about why we needed to have both a republic that had a little bit of distance to the federalist papers from the people, why it was important to have a central government, not just have each state being its own government.

you mentioned ambition checking ambition, but what was the idea the founders had about setting up the different branches of government as mechanisms for checking abuses of power. we also talk about what they missed. sorta the irony of not anticipating the rise of partisanship. parties have become such a dominant force that it undermines the idea that the branches check each other. when you read the fierce political battles that were taking place at the beginning, you see it all happened immediately. you kind of wonder about the blind spot. we talked about that.

their great vision and their areas of great blindness. >> are there robust debates in your classroom about the federalist papers? >> to some extent, yes of course. about a broader question about constitutionalism generally. and how do we understand the constitution. to what extent does the document remain in the 18th century govern us now and did the framers anticipate how we would handle these issues? that is obviously a debate that consumes far more than the legal community, but really goes to the heart of how we imagine our democracy. the federalist papers are a vantage point to get into that debate and try to figure out how

and why should we adhere to this document. >> the judge has been nodding his head. what were you hearing, judge? >> i agree with every point she made. i teach it george washington university as an adjunct and i have the same reaction from my students. it is interesting how they got so many things right, but they missed a few things they did not quite think about. ask the professor said, it is hard to imagine that they did not understand that parties would play such a hard -- large role, and yet they do. we do not have a perfect constitution. he says how to make a treaty, but not how to get out of a treaty. >> i teach that class too.

>> early on in discussed in the articles of confederation, you have to remember the circumstances in which thewe written. they were very trying circumstances so we did not come out perfectly. i think the same thing is true with the u.s. constitution. one thing they had the advantage of is that they had about 11 -- about 13 years of state constitutions that had been written. 11 years of 13 state constitutions that had been written. some were very good, some were not so good. they learned a little bit about how to write a constitution. >> colleen sheehan, what have you been hearing? >> i want to agree with what has

been set as well. they saw a lot, they missed some things. the question of political parties -- remember who started parties in america was actually madison and jefferson on one side, and alexander hamilton on the others. so the authors of the federalist papers, fo years later are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. the federalists versus the republicans. i do not think they were totally naive about that. what they did not want was parties in the way they had known them through the british system. i think madison's idea about funding the republican party in the united states was not to find a party along the partition

model. he thought of it as against those he considered anti-republicans. he was afraid the moneyed men in hamilton's new york city were going to take over and not let the common man have their say. there was a little bit more to that dispute that goes on between them and to the question of parties that sometimes we make it out to be. >> i do not have any argument with that. how did they not figure some of this into the division of power between the branches? perhaps they would have had to be too omniscient to understand how certain mechanisms, like impeachment for example,