>> 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, checks and balances. ambition must be made to counteract ambition. the interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. it may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. what 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 they were 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, four 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, is basically a nonfunctional part of the constitution, except for a handful of judges who have been impeached. the alignments are not based on the branch, but based on partisanship. so it does not function as a way

of checking elected officials who have otherwise been engaged in some activities that might be impeachable under other circumstances. we can see parts of the constitution that do not work the way they were supposed to with the rise of parties. it was right from the get go. you see it in marbury versus madison. we held up this case for obvious reasons as being so profound.

when you look at the facts underlying it, they are pretty defining. >> thank you for spending a few minutes with us on books that shaped america. >> pleased to be with you. >> we are talking about the federalist papers. there are nine public schools named after alexander hamilton, five for john jay, there is james madison university in virginia. there are more than 200 breakfast since to the

federalist papers and supreme court decisions. more than 3000 references to federalist 78 by supreme court justices. there hamilton statues in washington dc. the james madison building at the library of congress and the john jay statue at new york city college. this is alexander hamilton. liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but what have everything to fear from its what was the importance of federalist number 78? judge maggs: hamilton described the judiciary, talking about how judges were appointed, the tenure and powers and one of his famous quotes was, they have neither the sword nor the purse,

they only decide questions. they cannot spend money or engage in any action except deciding questions. he wrote about the importance of having an independent judiciary. he said it does not make sense to have limited government without it because there is no way to enforce it. if you talked about judicial review before that but it is clear hamilton had thought about the idea that there were unconstitutional laws that would not be enforced. he also talked about the idea that judges had to be learned and know that presidents and the idea that they had to be independent to carry out duties. i think every judge is familiar with federal 78 and i think it is no doubt the reason why so

many supreme court justices have cited the article. that is was not published until may 1787 and by then eight states had already ratified. so we did not influence those states. peter: sergio is on the phone from albany, new york. >> i have a two-part question. i am interested in finding out whether the federalist papers served the purpose of the scope of work to develop the republic as well and also, who were the essays directed to? the general population at the time, or the landowning gentry? thank you. peter: thank you. prof. sheehan: the second

question, they were directed to the people of the state of new york, landholders who voted but virtually anyone, it was not that difficult to own land. so that is the second question. the first, as a template to the republic, if i understood your question correctly, interesting enough, medicine uses the federalist papers a few years later as the basis to build on for an outline to try to get at an understanding of what republican government is and how to make it work. he figured he had started the project in the federalist papers and had not finished it so he

spends weeks or months prior to his trip up lake champlain in new york state with jefferson in spring 1791 writing an outline on republicanism, starting with people like plato and trying to figure out how to make government by the people really work in the united states. what he is doing on this tour up lake champlain, it looks like he is organizing a political party. peter: back to federalist 78, one line from hamilton, the judiciary is beyond comparison. the weakest of the three departments of our. we have a text message -- of

power. we have a text message from tom in new jersey. when hamilton states the judiciary does not bestow the sword or purse is he stating the additional branch has less power than the congress or merely independent of the other two branches? prof. sheehan: he is stating both. when we say that this is a balanced government, when we say checks and balances, that term is not in the federalist papers. this is not in the constitution at all, we look to that federalist papers to explain what is going on in the constitution. this is not a balanced government and that all branches are equal. they are meant to check each other, but not equal. the legislative branch is by far the most powerful. it represents the people. that is why it is divided into

two houses, the senate and house, because it is so powerful. do you shift -- the judiciary was thought to be the weakest branch. it was definitely a blind spot of the poop leah's. it has turned -- of publius. peter: we have a representative of that branch. judge, do you agree with the sentiment by alexander hamilton? judge maggs: i agree with professor sheehan assessment of hamilton's statement, which is that it is somewhat of a blind thought -- blind spot, he thought the judiciary would be weaker than it turned out to be. in that same passage where he talks about judicial review, hamilton said no weight can be given to the idea that judges

will avoid applying statutes based on the pretense that they are unconstitutional. i am paraphrasing. certainly today that is the concern of judicial power, is the supreme court striking down things that are constitutional. he did not see this would happen . maybe judges were different in his day. maybe with a smaller group or for whatever reason, i agree completely with professor sheehan that they were saying the judiciary was the weakest but i think they would have been surprised at how it turned out. peter: whoever considers the different departments of power must perceive in a government where they are separate the judiciary from the nature of functions will always be the least dangerous to the political