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 cson. the weakest of the three departments of. 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 depas 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 theolical rights of the constitution because it will be leased in the capacity to injure them. john in columbus, ohio, thanks for holding. >> thank you for having me on. my question is about these

authors as political operators. i understand they were trying to achieve somethinin their time and i am wondering, were there historic examples they looked to that made them think that writing the papers would be effective? peter: do you go to ohio state? >> no. i work in the area but i do not go to school, no. peter: thank you. judge? judge maggs: the watches of the show will know that last week there was a program on the pamphlet common sense. but they did not have television or radio, they had newspapers. essays written in newspapers with a grand tradition of trying to make political points and have it work in their favor. they used the means of communications that were readily

available to them. they were not the only ones doing it. there was a whole group of people also writing essays saying the constitution should not be adopted, the antifederalists. now we have c-span on television allowing us to hear both sides but that was not the case then and there was a tradition of writing pamphlets of this kind and i think they thought it would be useful. professor sheehan mentioned new york was a crucial state. it was also tilting towards opposing the constitution. the president of the constitutional convention was an opponent of the constitution. others left the convention. there were big players in new york politics and opposed it. so they thought something had to be done. that is why they wrote these papers. peter: we are going to show a little video about how the

founding era and hamilton in particular had entered into popular culture. >> ♪ hear me out. a series of essays anonymously published defending the documents of the public. >> no one would read it. if it fails? >> that's why we would need it. ♪ ♪ peter: professor sheehan, what has been the impact of the musical hamilton on the understanding and popularity of studying the constitution? prof. sheehan: it is fabulous. i love it.

i did not get to see the musical, hamilton, but i know most of the songs because my students know them all and when it first came out, i heard them singing them in the hallways. so it was a slice of american history that became not only popular, but became a topic of conversation among people. just like that series on john adams did. these are not things just for history books. these are ideas that live with us today and if this is one way to bring them alive, i am all for it, absolutely. peter: we have not talked about john adams. did he have a role in the

federalist papers? prof. sheehan: he was in england and when they were sitting at the constitutional convention, he was publishing one of his volumes of defense of the constitution of the united states and people were reaching it at the constitutional convention. it made its way across the ocean. i know for one madison was disgusted with what he called atoms of noxious principles. adams was a bit of a -- john adams of noxious principles. -- obnoxious principles. >> is there such a thing as [indiscernible] it is debated back and forth,

can you go inside the mind of someone who lived in the 18th century? peter: judge? judge maggs: originalism is the idea that judges should be influenced but not bound by the original meaning of the constitution but it gets quite complicated because it turns out there is more than one view of what we mean by the original meaning. we could mean the original intent of the framers at the constitutional convention, the people who wrote the document, what did they think. or it could mean the original understanding by those who fiedhe constitution in 1787 and 1788. or we could talk about the original public meaning or objective meaning, which is what would the average people would have understood this to mean? what did the words mean when they were used? you asked a very important question, how are we to know

what someone then would have thought? not without tools. there are many historical sources and if you can find an agreement among those sources it gives you more confidence but i think where you get into difficulty is may be all you have is a snippet of the federalist papers or a snippet from the debates recorded at the constitutional convention. in such cases, your point is right, to be we just cannot figure out what the original meaning is. but then there is the question of, who has the burden of proof and how certain do we have to be? a entire course could be taught on the question you asked. peter: people who teach the federalist papers, we want to introduce you to a professor of social science at a california

high school. >> this is my 24th year teaching social science in orange county, california. i have taught government and economics and i am a law academy coordinator. when students learn about the federalist papers, it is because this is our story. this is our origin story. the history of the world does not begin when we start pa attention to it. these things are connected. there are three lines -- through lines between what we are experiencing now and then.

what do we know about the federalist papers? it is for the constitution. great. who wrote them? >> james madison, alexander hamilton, and john jay. >> the supreme court indicated courts are supposed to evaluate historical standards in deciding whether or not fire alarms regulation -- firearms regulations are constitutional. we will be at a tremendous loss if we do not know where we came from. understanding the federalist papers understand -- helps us understand what was going on when they wrote the constitution. we have to understand what it is we are trying to achieve so we can continue to become more perfect. the biggest challenge is the language. it is difficult to navigate.

people are people but the way we talk changes. when we are thinking about what was written in the newspaper and compare it to a current newspaper articles they do not have much in common is of language and phrasing so getting the students to unpack the la is one of the biggest challenges. what i want my students to understand is that these ordinary humans were extraordinary heroes. we are having this national conversation about how we teach social science. the idea that multiple things can be true, we have people who struggled but also did great things and history connects, the things we experience now have lines back to the struggles from back then. peter: we want to thank the

social science teacher for sharing her thoughts on teaching the federalist papers. charles from louisville, kentucky, thank you for holding. go ahead. >> my question is on the checks and balances on the constitution and politics we have today. it seems to me that legislation was changed years ago when the democrats had full control and when they lost the house, they could not seem to pass any bills because they cannot get them on the floor because the democrats

really had control of the house. peter: thank you. charles brought contemporary politics into our discussion. are they relevant to what we have been talking about? prof. sheehan: sure. even though we have political parties today, there is still separation of powers and checks and balances because ambition counteracts ambition. you see that in state legislatures and between and among the various branches of government. democrats side with democrats and republicans side with -- democrats vie with democrats and republicans vie with republicans to be the next speaker of the house or president. one thing i wanted to mention was the question of choice in politics. because i think charles was sort

of talking about the parties not really having a choice unless they have the majority. that is one of the things that i think is most important in politics today, to realize that even though it is tough to get things done because of separation of power and checks and balances on what people called deadlocks, congress needs to take responsibility for legislation and not abdicate the responsibility to other branches of government, the judiciary has become more powerful partly in response to congress not doing their job. i do not think this is a partisan claim at all. it is a question about the role of those who represent the american people and standing up and actually doing the job of legislation. if they are not doing the job, the people are not being represented well in the united states. peter: the federalist was not

the only book published from 1758 through 1800 in the united states. on the list, here are some of the others featured. the legend of sleepy hollow was published in 1820. the book of mormon for the church of jes rist of latter day saints was published in 1830. mcguffey's newly revised primer published in 1836. children were taught geography and history with a book written in 1837. a selection of stories from edgar allen poe was published in 1845. here are more books from the library of congress list of books that shaped america. the scarlet letter, 1850.

moby dick, 1851. uncle tom's cabin by harriet beecher stowe released in 1852. henry david thorough writing about nature and solitary -- solidarityn 54 with his book, walden. peter: if yo go t c-span.org you will findhe library of congress list of 100 books over the past 250 years or so that have influenced who we are today, shaped public policy, and des who we are. you can find that full list. weave chosen 10 from the list for our series. you can createour own list on c-span.org, books that shaped america. at the top you can click a viewer input and sending your videos about how you thinkoo

have shaped america, specifically if you have a boo on your list that is not related to the one we are talking about. click on the button and send in a video and we mighus it. we want to show you some of the viewer vids w. >> my name is david. i think a book that shaped america is where the wild things grow. for so many of us it is one of the first books we ever read. we run it with our parents and it created enthusiasm and excitement for reading and we kept wanting to turn the next page, which is still part of the reading journey for so many of us. >> i am sarah baldwin. i live and work in washington, d.c. and the book i think that shaped america is the souls of black folks by w ide the boy.

-- wb deploy. he discusses the issues around race in the country and how we can resolve them. that is the book i think should be part of this series. >> i am grant from chattanooga, tennessee. the book i think shaped america is beloved by toni morrison. it explores race in america in cool and interesting ways. it is very atmospheric. thank you. >> my name is ryan donaldson and a man washington, d.c. and the book that shaped the country is [indiscernible] and it shapes the u.s. because [inaudible] it informs the viewer to get to the ballot box. >> blue highways shaped america.

it showcases the part of america that is not often seen in most modern or major literary works and i think it is a very imrtant piece of americana and culture. peter: there is the website. books that shaped america at c-span.org. find all 10 books we will feature in the series anyou can find additional videos on each book, plus we have a podcast talking about the authors of each book. you can get the podcast wherever you get your podcasts. mark from bridgewater, massachusetts, please go ahead. >> good evening and distinguished guests. when i think about the contribution of the founding fathers on the work of a have done with the federalist papers,

i am also thinking about the 18th century americans were interested in preserving the liberty for which they had fought virtually loosely -- virtuously during the revolution. each individual state had specific needs and it is understanding why they had reservations about potentially sacrificing liberties to a central government. my question is, must americans be prepared to sacrifice additional liberties as our world becomes increasingly complex? thank you very much. peter: gregory? judge maggs: he has a premise on a question. i agree with the premise. one of the biggest concerns they had to address is now we will have a more powerful central government which means the states will be less powerful which means you might not have as much liberty as you might

otherwise have. one of the biggest challenges the authors faced was how to explain that this was actually going to be an improvement. they talked about a lot of different things. they talked about the fact that if the union fell apart, every individual state would have to have their own standing army to defend itself but if we had a union we would not need a standing army of this kind. if you had a federal government and state government to check each other. you mentioned today, is it the case that we have to sacrifice liberty in order to have a successful government. i hope not. as a judge i do not really get into politics but i do not think this is a new debate. it is very similar to the debate

you pointed out occurred back then. peter: colleen from arizona state university, you have 30 seconds. did the federalist impact who we are today? prof. sheehan: yes. yes. i think the most important of the papers is federalist 51, or medicine proclaims justice is the end of government, of civil society. it will never be pursued until liberty be lost in its pursuit. that is my answer to the last caller's question. judge maggs: it definitely has and watching that fabulous high school with the teacher and enthusiasm of students i think it would be hard to deny the impact of the papers have had on america. peter: thank you both so much

for spending the last 90 minutes with us on c-span's books that shaped america. and thank you, callers. ♪