Who wrote the Federalist papers?

Originalists of all stripes cite "The Federalist Papers". It is fairly tenuous to suggest that this represents a good source for the original "intent": after all, Alexander Hamilton, who wrote the majority of those essays, was absent for the greater part of the Philadelphia Convention, and John Jay did not attend it at all. However, James Madison, the principal framer of the Constitution also wrote a substantial amount of "The Federalist Papers". Also, to suggest Hamilton and Jay's absence from the convention implies their ignorance as to the Constitution's original meaning is demeaning to those two men and inaccurate. The collected anti-Federalist papers, of course, will be no use at all to a person searching for the original "intent" of the framers. However, as evidence of how a reasonable person at the time would have understood the words of the Constitution, "The Federalist Papers" and the anti-Federalist essays are evidence of direct relevance.

Original meaning

In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, original meaning is the dominant form of the legal theory of originalism today. It was made popular by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and contends that the terms of the United States Constitution should be interpreted as meaning what they meant when they were ratified, which is to say, it asks the question: "What would a reasonable person living at the time of ratification have understood these words to mean?"

The theory stands in equal opposition to interpretivist theories such as original intent, and legal realist theories such as that of the living Constitution.

Original meaning is a formalist theory, and a logical extension of textualism. Textualists believe that a statute means whatever the plain meaning of its words is, as opposed to other potential meanings, such as what those who drafted the law or voted for it "intended" it to say. Formalists would point out that it is unnecessary for any member of the legislature to share the intentions of any other member of the legislature, or even to "have" a particular intent; what counts is their vote, just as if a voter enters a polling station while inebriated, and indicates a preference for the wrong candidate, their vote will count as a vote for the person they indicated on the ballot paper, not for the candidate for whom they intended to vote before they started drinking. Likewise, even if not a single member of the legislature has read and comprehended the effect of a given bill (a scenario some critics of the USA PATRIOT Act and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allege to have actually occurred during the enactment of these statutes), once it becomes law, it is a law no less or more valid than an identically worded law passed when every member of the legislature is of the same mind and understanding regarding its meaning and effect. This being the case, it is the text of the law which governs.

An originalist inquiry into the original "meaning" of the Constitution is able to cast a much broader net than an inquiry into the original "intent".

Likewise, neither John Adams nor Thomas Jefferson attended the Convention, and thus two of the most prolific writers of the founding era are necessarily excluded (or, at best, abstracted) from an original-intent inquiry. Because they were reasonable contemporaries of the Framers, their writings are informative to discussions of the text's original meaning.

One of the primary virtues of original meaning over original intent is that the original meaning is a fairly discernible thing, while the original intent is nebulous and uncertain. This is well-illustrated by the use of dictionaries. Contemporaneous dictionaries are of dubious value to an original "intent" inquiry, but of high value to an original "meaning" inquiry: we can establish what the words the Framers chose "meant", but that is not "necessarily" conclusive as to what they "intended" to say (consider for example, the law of unintended consequences).

The theory was arguably pioneered and popularized by Justice Antonin Scalia; whether Scalia could take credit for inventing it, he remained one of its most forceful and high-profile proponents, although he was also accused of deviating from the method (he himself admitted that "in a crunch I may prove a faint-hearted originalist") (Scalia, "Originalism: The Lesser Evil", 57 U. Cin. L. Rev. 849 at 864).

Federalist No. 68 is the 68th essay of "The Federalist Papers", and was published on March 12, 1788. It is probably written by Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym "Publius", the name under which all of the Federalist Papers were published. Since all of them were written under this pseudonym, who wrote what cannot be verified with certainty. Entitled "The Mode of Electing the President", No. 68 describes a perspective on the process of selecting the Chief Executive of the United States. In writing this essay, the author sought to convince the people of New York of the merits of the proposed Constitution. Number 68 is the second in a series of 11 essays discussing the powers and limitations of the Executive branch and the only one to describe the method of selecting the president.

Federalist No. 68

Throughout its proceedings, the US Constitutional Convention of 1787 debated the method for selecting the president, trying to find a method that would be acceptable to all the bodies represented at the convention.

Different plans were proposed, including:

The interests of slave-holding states may have influenced the choice of the Electoral College as the mode of electing the president. James Wilson proposed the use of a direct election by the people, but he gained no support for this idea, and it was decided that the president would be elected by Congress. When the entire draft of the Constitution was considered, Gouverneur Morris brought the debate back up and decided he too wanted the people to choose the president. James Madison agreed that election of the people at large was the best way to go about electing the president, but he knew that the less populous slave states would not be influential under such a system, and he backed the Electoral College. Another factor here was the so-called Three-Fifths Compromise, which gave added power to the slave-holding states under the Electoral College which they would not have had under any likely form of popular vote.

Federalist No. 68 is the continuation of Alexander Hamilton's analysis of the presidency, in this case concerning the method of electing the president. Hamilton argues the advantages of the indirect electoral process described in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution, although in the case of a tied vote in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives was to make the choice.

Hamilton viewed the system as superior to direct popular election. First, he recognized, the "sense of the people should operate in the choice", and would through the election of the electors to the Electoral College. Second, the electors would be:

...men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.
Such men would be "most likely to have the information and discernment" to make a good choice and to avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

Corruption of an electoral process could most likely arise from the desire of "foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." To minimize risk of foreign machinations and inducements, the electoral college would have only a "transient existence" and no elector could be a "senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States"; electors would make their choice in a "detached situation", whereas a preexisting body of federal office-holders "might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes".

Also, a successful candidate for the office of president would have to have the distinguished qualities to appeal to electors from many states, not just one or a few states:
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
Hamilton expressed confidence that:
It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.
Hamilton lists specific rules for the electors, which include:

Hamilton notes that the selection of the vice president should follow the same form as that of the president, through selection by the Electoral College, though the Senate is to deal with the voting in the case of an Electoral tie. Hamilton also answers criticism that the Senate should have been given the power to select the vice president instead of the Electoral College. Hamilton notes that there are two major arguments against that point: first, that the vice president's power as President of the Senate would mean that the tiebreaker of the Senate would be beholden to the Senate for his power, and therefore would be unable to make the necessary decisions as a tiebreaker without fear of removal or reprisal; second, that the possibility of the vice president becoming president means that this individual should be elected by the people and the Electoral College, because all of the powers vested in the president could fall into the hands of the vice president.In Anti-Federalist Papers 72, the anonymous Republican writer argues that the issues with the Electoral College deal with the ability of electors, rather than the people, to elect the president. In his eyes, the Electoral College removes the ability of the people to select their leader, and instead delegates that right to a small number of individuals.

The writer further speculates, "Is it not probable, at least possible, that the president who is to be vested with all this demiomnipotence — who is not chosen by the community; and who consequently, as to them, is irresponsible and independent — that he, I say, by a few artful and dependent emissaries in Congress, may not only perpetuate his own personal administration, but also make it hereditary?" Republican's fears are of a hypothetically stronger executive whom he compared to Britain's George III.

Hamilton also defends against the claims made in Cato No. 4, which claimed that "The establishment of a vice-president is as unnecessary as it is dangerous [for them to preside in the senate]". Madison gave two reasons for the vice president to be the presiding officer of the senate. First, since he only has one vote, he is equal to his substituents. Also, should the president die, the vice president will know the concerns of the Congress and president, and as such be better prepared than anyone else to take the position.
Hamilton, James Madison and the other designers of the electoral college never expected the emergence of organized political parties would choose their candidates in competition with each other. By 1796, the Federalists and Republicans were rapidly being organized-- with leadership provided by Hamilton and Madison-- making the electoral college a minor adjunct of little importance. A flaw was discovered in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr both got the same number of electoral votes, although Jefferson was the intended candidate. That flaw was soon fixed by a 12th Amendment to the US Constitution.

The Constitution's process for electing the president and vice president has won praise as a reasonably designed system by which to operate these elections in the United States. Hamilton described this system as, "if it is not perfect, it is at least excellent."

There are also negative reactions that focus on 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016, which all resulted in the candidate who came in second in the popular vote winning the majority of the votes in the Electoral College.

There is no provision for the role of political parties in the United States Constitution, since the Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and No. 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, wrote specifically about the dangers of domestic political factions. Thus in the first two presidential elections, the Electoral College handled the nominations and elections in 1789 and 1792 that selected George Washington. The beginnings of the American two-party system then emerged from Washington's immediate circle of advisors. Hamilton and Madison, who wrote the aforementioned Federalist Papers against political factions, ended up being the core leaders in this partisanship: Hamilton became the leader of Federalist Party while Madison co-helmed the Democratic-Republican Party with Thomas Jefferson.

United States presidential primary

The presidential primary elections and caucuses held in the various states, the District of Columbia, and territories of the United States form part of the nominating process of candidates for United States presidential elections. The United States Constitution has never specified the process; political parties have developed their own procedures over time. Some states hold only primary elections, some hold only caucuses, and others use a combination of both. These primaries and caucuses are staggered, generally beginning sometime in January or February, and ending about mid-June before the general election in November. State and local governments run the primary elections, while caucuses are private events that are directly run by the political parties themselves. A state's primary election or caucus is usually an indirect election: instead of voters directly selecting a particular person running for president, they determine the number of delegates each party's national convention will receive from their respective state. These delegates then in turn select their party's presidential nominee. The first state in the United States to hold its presidential primary was New Hampshire in 1920.

Each party determines how many delegates it allocates to each state. Along with those "pledged" delegates chosen during the primaries and caucuses, state delegations to both the Democratic and Republican conventions also include "unpledged" delegates who have a vote. For Republicans, they consist of the three top party officials who serve "At Large" from each state and territory. Democrats have a more expansive group of unpledged delegates called "superdelegates", who are party leaders and elected officials (PLEO). If no single candidate has secured an absolute majority of delegates (including both pledged and unpledged), then a "brokered convention" occurs: all pledged delegates are "released" after the first round of voting and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate, and then additional rounds take place until there is a winner with an absolute majority.

The staggered nature of the presidential primary season allows candidates to concentrate their resources in each area of the country one at a time instead of campaigning in every state simultaneously. In some of the less populous states, this allows campaigning to take place on a much more personal scale. However, the overall results of the primary season may not be representative of the U.S. electorate as a whole: voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and other less populous states which traditionally hold their primaries and caucuses in late-January/February usually have a major impact on the races, while voters in California and other large states which traditionally hold their primaries in June generally end up having no say because the races are usually over by then. As a result, more states vie for earlier primaries, known as "front-loading", to claim a greater influence in the process. The national parties have used penalties and awarded bonus delegates in efforts to stagger the system over broadly a 90-day window. Where state legislatures set the primary or caucus date, sometimes the out-party in that state has endured penalties in the number of delegates it can send to the national convention.

Starting with the 1796 election, Congressional party or a state legislature party caucus selected the party's presidential candidates. Before 1820, Democratic-Republican members of Congress would nominate a single candidate from their party. That system collapsed in 1824, and since 1832 the preferred mechanism for nomination has been a national convention.

The first national convention was called by the Anti-Masonic Party in 1831, as they could not use the caucus system because they had no Congressmen. The party leaders instead called for a national meeting of supporters to set the party's candidate. This convention was held in Baltimore, Maryland on September 26, 1831 which selected William Wirt as their presidential candidate.

Delegates to the national convention were usually selected at state conventions whose own delegates were chosen by district conventions. Sometimes they were dominated by intrigue between political bosses who controlled delegates; the national convention was far from democratic or transparent. Progressive Era reformers looked to the primary election as a way to measure popular opinion of candidates, as opposed to the opinion of the bosses. Florida enacted the first presidential primary in 1901. The Wisconsin direct open primary of 1905 was the first to eliminate the caucus and mandate direct selection of national convention delegates. In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary, which requires delegates to the National Convention to support the winner of the primary at the convention. By 1912, twelve states either selected delegates in primaries, used a preferential primary, or both. By 1920 there were 20 states with primaries, but some went back, and from 1936 to 1968, 12 states used them.

The primary received its first major test in the 1912 election pitting incumbent President William Howard Taft against challengers Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette. Roosevelt proved the most popular candidate, but as most primaries were non-binding "preference" shows and held in only fourteen of the-then forty-eight states, the Republican nomination went to Taft, who controlled the convention.

Seeking to boost voter turnout, New Hampshire simplified its ballot access laws in 1949. In the ensuing non-binding "beauty contest" of 1952, Republican Dwight Eisenhower demonstrated his broad voter appeal by out-polling the favored Robert A. Taft, "Mr. Republican." Also, Democrat Estes Kefauver defeated incumbent President Harry S. Truman, leading the latter to decide not to run for another term.
The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary has since become a widely observed test of candidates' viability.

The impetus for national adoption of the binding primary election was the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention. Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the Presidential nomination despite not winning a single primary under his own name. After this, a Democratic National Committee-commissioned panel led by Senator George McGovern – the McGovern–Fraser Commission – recommended that states adopt new rules to assure wider participation. A large number of states, faced with the need to conform to more detailed rules for the selection of national delegates, chose a presidential primary as an easier way to come into compliance with the new national Democratic Party rules. The result was that many more future delegates would be selected by a state presidential primary. The Republicans also adopted many more state presidential primaries. By 1992, Democrats had primaries in 40 states and Republicans in 39.

With the broadened use of the primary system, states have tried to increase their influence in the nomination process. One tactic has been to create geographic blocs to encourage candidates to spend time in a region. Vermont and Massachusetts attempted to stage a joint New England primary on the first Tuesday of March, but New Hampshire refused to participate so it could retain its traditional place as the first primary. The first regional primary was the Southern Super Tuesday of March 8, 1988, in which nine states united in the idea that a candidate would reflect regional interests. It failed as all but two of the eight major candidates won at least one primary on that day.

Another trend is to stage earlier and earlier primaries, given impetus by Super Tuesday and the mid-1990s move (since repealed) of the California primary and its bloc of votes—the largest in the nation—from June to March. To retain its tradition as the first primary in the country (and adhere to a state law which requires it to be), New Hampshire moved their primary forward, from early March to early January.

A major reason states try to increase their influence, and vie for earlier primaries, is that in recent years the races have usually been decided before the primary season has ended in June. For example, John McCain officially clinched the 2008 Republican presidential nomination in March, while during that same month Barack Obama held a substantial lead in pledged delegates in the Democratic Party primaries. In 2012, Obama faced no major challenger in the Democratic Party primaries since he had the advantage of incumbency "(see below)", while Mitt Romney gained enough delegates to be declared the "presumptive" Republican nominee by late April.

In 2012, both the Republicans and the Democrats moved their Florida primary to January 31, which was an earlier date than past election cycles. In response, other states also changed their primary election dates for 2012, in order to claim a greater influence, creating a cascade of changes in other states. This followed what happened in 2008 when Nevada moved its caucuses to January, causing other states to also move their primaries to earlier dates. Senate Majority Leader and Nevada Senator Harry Reid was a major proponent of moving that state's caucuses to January, arguing that Nevada would be the perfect American microcosm: its western location, significant minority population, and strong labor population would be more representative of the country as a whole than Iowa and New Hampshire.

Both parties then enacted stricter timing rules for 2016: primaries and caucuses cannot start until February 1; and only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are entitled to February contests.

The primary and caucus system is the only method in which voters in Puerto Rico, Guam, and other U.S. territories can have a say in the presidential race. Under the U.S. Constitution, U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College, and thus voters residing in those areas are basically ineligible to vote in the general election. On the other hand, as stated above, the primaries and caucuses are non-governmental party affairs. Both the Democratic and Republican parties, as well as other third parties, have agreed to let these territories participate in the presidential nomination process. In the two major party's rules, "territories" are referred to as "states", which can be carried over in discussion and media implying there are more than 50 states.

An incumbent president seeking re-election usually faces no opposition during their respective party's primaries, especially if they are still popular. For presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, for example, their respective paths to nomination became uneventful and the races become merely "pro forma"; all four then went on to win a second presidential term. Serious challenges are rare, but then generally presage failure to win the general election in the fall. During the 1976 Republican Party primaries, then-former California governor Reagan carried 23 states while running against incumbent President Gerald Ford; Ford then went on to lose the presidential election to Jimmy Carter. Senator Ted Kennedy then carried 12 states while running against Carter during the 1980 Democratic Party primaries; Reagan then defeated Carter in the fall. Pat Buchanan captured a decent percentage of a protest vote against George H.W. Bush during the 1992 Republican primaries, but only received a handful of delegates; Bush too subsequently went on to lose in the general election to Clinton.

Both major political parties of the U.S.—the Democratic Party and the Republican Party—officially nominate their candidate for president at their respective national conventions. Each of these conventions is attended by a number of delegates selected in accordance with the given party's bylaws. The results of the presidential primaries and caucuses bind many of these delegates, known as pledged delegates, to vote for a particular candidate.

Both parties also have a group of unpledged delegates. Republicans have three "At-Large" delegates selected at the state convention from all the states and territories, 168 in number. These are each states' two national committeepersons and the state chairperson.

In Democratic primaries through 2016, about 85% of delegates to the Democratic National Convention are "pledged delegates" who are apportioned to candidates according to the results of primaries and caucuses. The remaining 15% are unpledged superdelegates (consisting of sitting Democratic governors, sitting Democratic members of Congress (i.e., senators and representatives), former and current Democratic presidents and vice presidents, and a few leaders of Democratic National Committee-affiliated organizations, such as the Young Democrats of America) who can vote for whomever they wish. Some superdelegates are former or current state or federal lobbyists. In 2016, following a push by Senator Bernie Sanders, the party voted in favor of superdelegate reform, such that in future presidential elections most superdelegates will be bound to their state primary results.

Franchise in a primary or caucus is governed by rules established by the state party, although the states may impose other regulations.

While most states hold primary elections, a handful of states hold caucuses. Instead of going to a polling place, voters attend local private events run by the political parties, and cast their selections there. The advantage of caucuses is that the state party runs the process directly instead of having the state and local governments run them. The disadvantage is that most election laws do not normally apply to caucuses.

Nearly all states have a "binding" primary or caucus, in which the results of the election depending on state law or party rules legally "bind" some or all of the delegates to vote for a particular candidate at the national convention, for a certain number of ballots or until the candidate releases the delegates. Some binding primaries are "winner-take-all" contests, in which all of a state's delegates are required to vote for the same candidate. In a "proportional vote", a state's delegation is allocated in proportion to the candidates' percent of the popular vote in a congressional district. In many of those states that have proportional vote primaries, a candidate must meet a certain threshold in the popular vote to be given delegates.

A handful of states practice "non-binding" "beauty contests", which are public opinion surveys for use by caucus delegates to select candidates to a state convention, which then in turn selects delegates to the national convention.

In many states, only voters registered with a party may vote in that party's primary, known as a closed primary. In some states, a semi-closed primary is practiced, in which voters unaffiliated with a party (independents) may choose a party primary in which to vote. In an open primary, any voter may vote in any party's primary. In all of these systems, a voter may participate in only one primary; that is, a voter who casts a vote for a candidate standing for the Republican nomination for president cannot cast a vote for a candidate standing for the Democratic nomination, or vice versa. A few states once staged a blanket primary, in which voters could vote for one candidate in multiple primaries, but the practice was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2000 case of "California Democratic Party v. Jones" as violating the freedom of assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party usually modify their delegate selection rules between presidential elections, including how delegates are allocated to each state and territory.

Under the current Democratic Party selection rules, adopted in 2006, pledged delegates are selected under proportional representation, which requires a candidate have a minimum of 15% of a state's popular vote to receive delegates. In addition, the Democratic Party may reject any candidate under their bylaws. Each state publishes a Delegate Selection Plan that notes the mechanics of calculating the number of delegates per congressional district, and how votes are transferred from local conventions to the state and national convention. Since the 2012 Democratic primaries, the number of pledged delegates allocated to each of the 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. is based on two main factors: (1) the proportion of votes each state gave to the Democratic candidate in the last three presidential elections, and (2) the number of electoral votes each state has in the United States Electoral College. States who schedule their primary or caucus later in the primary season may also get additional bonus delegates.

The Republican Party's rules since 2008 leave more discretion to the states in choosing a method of allocating pledged delegates. As a result, states variously applied the statewide winner-take-all method (e.g., New York), district- and state-level winner-take-all (e.g., California), or proportional allocation (e.g., Massachusetts). Changes in the rules before 2012 brought proportional representation to more states. Also, three delegates are allocated for each congressional district. For at-large ones elected statewide, each state gets at least 10, plus additional bonus delegates based on whether it has a Republican governor, it has GOP majorities in one or all chambers of its state legislature, and whether it has GOP majorities in its delegation to the U.S. Congress, among other factors.

Each party's bylaws also specify which current and former elected officeholders and party leaders qualify as unpledged delegates. Because of possible deaths, resignations, or the results of intervening or special elections, the final number of these superdelegates may not be known until the week of the convention.

During the convention, there is generally a roll call of the votes. Each delegation announces its vote tallies, usually accompanied with some boosterism of their state or territory. The delegation may pass, nominally to retally their delegates' preferences, but often to allow a different delegation to give the leading candidate the honor of casting the majority-making vote.

If no single candidate has secured a majority of delegates (including both pledged and unpledged) during the first vote, then a "brokered convention" results. All pledged delegates are then "released" and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate. Thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse trading, and additional rounds of re-votes.

A customary ceremonial practice has been for the losing candidate(s) in the primary season to "release" their delegates at the convention and exhort them to vote for the winning nominee as a sign of party unity. Thus, the vote tallied on the convention floor is unanimous or nearly so. For example, during the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton (who only captured about 22 percent of delegates compared to Barack Obama's approximate 72 percent) moved to nominate Obama by acclamation, making it a unanimous vote.

Campaigning for president often begins almost a year before the New Hampshire primary, almost two years before the presidential election. This is largely because federal campaign finance laws including the Federal Election Campaign Act state that a candidate who intends to receive contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000 or make expenditures aggregating in excess of $5,000, among others, must first file a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election Commission. Thus, presidential candidates officially announce their intentions to run that early so they can start raising or spending the money needed to mount their nationwide campaigns.

During the first six months of the year, primaries and caucuses are separately held in each state, Puerto Rico, insular areas, and the District of Columbia, Each party sets its own calendar and rules, and in some cases actually administers the election. However, to reduce expenses and encourage turnout, the major parties' primaries are usually held the same day and may be consolidated with other state elections. The primary election itself is administered by local governments according to state law. In some cases, state law determines how delegates will be awarded and who may participate in the primary; where it does not, party rules prevail.

Since the 1970s, states have held increasingly early primaries to maximize their leverage (see "Front-loading and compression" below). In reaction to these moves, both the Democratic and Republican National Committees imposed a timing tier system of scheduling rules, stripping states of delegates if they move their primaries early, such as the case in both the Florida Democratic primary and the Florida Republican primary in 2008.

The election dates for 2016, up to and including Super Tuesday are as follows:

The first binding event, in which a candidate can secure convention delegates, is traditionally the Iowa caucus, usually held in late January or early February of the presidential election year. It is generally followed by the New Hampshire primary, the first primary by tradition since 1920 and by New Hampshire state law. New Hampshire law states the primary shall be held "on the Tuesday at least seven days immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election." The Iowa caucuses are not considered to be "a similar election" under New Hampshire's law because the former uses caucuses instead of primary elections. Should any other state move its primary too close to New Hampshire's, or before, the New Hampshire Secretary of State is required to reschedule the primary accordingly.

In recent elections, the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary have garnered over half the media attention paid to the entire selection process. After Iowa and New Hampshire, the front runners then attempt to solidify their status, while the others fight to become #2.

Because these states are small, campaigning takes place on a much more personal scale. As a result, even a little-known, underfunded candidate can use "retail politics" to meet intimately with interested voters and perform better than expected. The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary have produced a number of headline-making upsets in history:

South Carolina is generally the "First in the South" primary. For the Republicans, it is considered a "firewall" to protect establishment favorites and frontrunners in the presidential nomination race, being designed to stop the momentum of insurgent candidates who could have received a boost from strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire. From its inception in 1980 through the election of 2008, the winner of the South Carolina Republican presidential primary has gone on to win the nomination. In the 2012 Republican primaries, Newt Gingrich initially finished poorly in the early states, but then scored an upset victory in South Carolina over frontrunner Mitt Romney. However, after suffering a decisive defeat to Romney in Florida, Gingrich's campaign was relegated back to third place, leaving Rick Santorum as the main challenger to Romney for the rest of the primaries.

The Tuesday in February or March when the greatest number of states hold primary elections and caucuses is known as "Super Tuesday". Because it is held in various states from geographically and socially diverse regions of the country, it typically represents a presidential candidate's first test of national electability. More delegates can be won on Super Tuesday than on any other single day of the primary calendar, thus convincing wins during this day have usually propelled candidates to their party's nomination.

Because they are the states that traditionally hold their respective contests first, the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary usually attract the most media attention; however, critics, such as Mississippi Secretary of State Eric Clark and Tennessee Senator William Brock, point out that these states are not representative of the United States as a whole: they are overwhelmingly white, more rural, and wealthier than the national average, and neither is in the fast-growing West or South.

Conversely, states that traditionally hold their primaries in June, like California (the most populous state overall) and New Jersey (the most densely populated state), usually end up having no say in who the presidential candidate will be. As stated above, the races were usually over well before June. California and New Jersey moved their primaries to February for the 2008 election, but in 2012 both states ended up moving them back to June. California lawmakers stated that consolidating their presidential and statewide primary election in June saves them about $100 million, and that it is not worth the cost when there is generally no competitive balance between the two political parties within California.

In 2005, the primary commission of the Democratic National Committee began considering removing Iowa and New Hampshire from the top of the calendar, but this proposal never gained approval, so those two states remain as the first two contests. New Hampshire also fought back by obliging candidates who wanted to campaign in the state to pledge to uphold that primary as the first one.

States vie for earlier primaries to claim greater influence in the nomination process, as the early primaries can act as a signal to the nation, showing which candidates are popular and giving those who perform well early on the advantage of the bandwagon effect. Also, candidates can ignore primaries that fall after the nomination has already been secured, and would owe less to those states politically. As a result, rather than stretching from March to July, most primaries take place in a compressed time frame in February and March. National party leaders also have an interest in compressing the primary calendar, as it enables the party to reduce the chance of a bruising internecine battle and to preserve resources for the general campaign.

In such a primary season, however, many primaries will fall on the same day, forcing candidates to choose where to spend their time and resources. Indeed, Super Tuesday was created deliberately to increase the influence of the South. When states cannot agree to coordinate primaries, however, attention flows to larger states with large numbers of delegates at the expense of smaller ones. Because the candidate's time is limited, paid advertising may play a greater role. Moreover, a compressed calendar limits the ability of lesser-known candidates to corral resources and raise their visibility among voters, especially when a better-known candidate enjoys the financial and institutional backing of the party establishment.

In an article from "Detroit News", Tennessee Senator William (Bill) Brock said about front-loading, "Today, too many people in too many states have no voice in the election of our major party nominees. For them, the nominations are over before they have begun."

The term "superdelegate" itself was used originally as a criticism of unpledged delegates. Political commentator Susan Estrich argued in 1981 that these delegates, who at the time were predominantly white and male, had more power than other delegates because of their greater freedom to vote as they wish. The Democratic Party in particular has faced accusations that it conducts its nominating process in an undemocratic way, because superdelegates are generally chosen without regard to their preferences in the presidential race and are not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters.

There are several proposals for reforming the primary system. Some have called for a single nationwide primary to be held on one day. Others point out that requiring candidates to campaign in every state simultaneously would exacerbate the purported problem of campaigns being dominated by the candidates who raise the most money. The following proposals attempt to return the primary system to a more relaxed schedule, and would help less-funded candidates by lowering the cost of entry.

One reform concept is the graduated random presidential primary system, variations of which have been referred to as the American Plan or the California Plan. This plan starts with small primaries, and gradually moves up to larger ones, in 10 steps, with states chosen at random. The idea is that fewer initial primaries, typically in smaller states, would allow grassroots campaigns to score early successes and pick up steam. However, since states are chosen at random, travel costs may still be significant.

A commission empaneled by the Republican National Committee recommended the Delaware Plan in 2000. This plan had states grouped by size into four groups, with the smallest primaries first, then the next-smallest, and so on. Populous states objected to the plan, however, because it would have always scheduled their primaries at the end of the season. Other criticisms included the wide geographic range of the states, necessitating high travel costs. The Delaware Plan was put to vote at Republican National Convention of 2000 and rejected.

The National Association of Secretaries of State has endorsed a rotating regional primary system, with the country split into four regions: the West, the Midwest, the South, and the Northeast. Unlike the Delaware Plan and the American Plan, the Rotating Regional Primary System would lower campaigning costs by restricting groups of primaries to single, contiguous regions.

Author and political scientist Larry J. Sabato is also a proponent of this plan, but his proposal would have the order of regional primaries determined by lottery on January 1 of each presidential election year instead of on a rotating basis. In addition, his plan would allow for a few small population states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire, to hold their primaries in advance of the first region.

Criticisms of the regional plan include the higher entry costs than the other plans (since 1/4 of the country would vote in the first regional), and the political bias of certain regions (the South or the Northeast) unduly influencing the selection of a nominee.

In the interregional primary plan, the country is divided into geographical regions. On each primary date from March to June, one state from each of six regions votes. Each election date would contain a wide variety of perspectives. The order of the states in each region is set by a lottery. In a 24-year cycle, every state would have a chance to be among the first primary states. The primary criticism of this plan is that travel costs would be quite high: in each round, candidates would essentially have to cover the entire country to campaign effectively. Contrary to most reform plans, this would reduce the ability of lesser-funded candidates to build up from small contests to large ones.
In the 2008 Republican primary, states that ran early primaries were punished by a reduction of 50% in the number of delegates they could send to the national convention. Extension of this idea would set timing tiers, under which states that ran earlier primaries would send proportionally fewer delegates to the national convention, and states that waited would get a higher proportional number of delegates to the convention. For example, the party allowed primaries before March 1 to send 40% of delegates; those during March could send 60%; those during April could send 80%; those during May could send 100%; and those during June could send 120%.

The effect of such a plan would be clumping of primaries at the beginning of each month. It would still allow states to determine the timing of their own primaries, while giving them some incentive to hold primaries later. The disadvantage of the timing adjustment method is that it does not reduce travel time as the regional plans do, although it does permit regional groups of states to voluntarily clump together in a single superprimary as they have done in the past.

In practice, however, this timing tier system did not prevent states from moving their primaries in 2008 and 2012. For example, during the 2012 Republican primary, Florida and several other states still moved their primaries to earlier dates despite being penalized delegates.

Both parties then enacted more severe penalties in 2016 for violating their timing rules. For Republicans, states with more than 30 delegates that violate the timing rules will be deprived of all their delegates but nine; states with less than 30 will be reduced to six. For Democrats, states violating these rules will be penalized half of their pledged delegates and all of their unpledged delegates.

Federalist No. 55 is an essay by James Madison, the fifty-fifth of The Federalist Papers. It was published on February 13, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist Papers were published. It is titled "The Total Number of House of Representatives". It is the first of four papers defending the number of members in the House of Representatives against the critics who believe the number of members to be inadequate. The critics presume that there aren't enough representatives to defend the country against the small group of legislators who are violating the rights of the people. In this paper, Madison examines the size of the United States House of Representatives.

Federalist No. 55

The paper discusses critics' objections to the relatively small size of the House of Representatives (sixty-five members) because they believe that there aren't enough representatives to defend the country against the small group of legislators who are violating the rights of the people. Madison notes that the size of the House will increase as population increases. In addition, he states that the small size does not put the public liberty in danger because of the checks and balances relationship the House of Representatives has with the state legislatures, as well as the fact that every member is voted in by the people every two years.

The House of Representatives is one of Congress' two chambers, and a part of the legislative branch. The House is responsible for making and passing federal laws. Each Representative is elected to a two-year term. The number of voting Representatives is fixed at 435, proportionally representing the population of the fifty states in the United States of America. The Representatives do not only introduce bills and resolutions, but they also serve on Committees and offer amendments.

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for both the minimum and maximum sizes for the House of Representatives. Currently, there are five delegates representing the District of Columbia, the Guam, American Samoa, The Virgin Islands, northern Mariana Islands, and the Commonwealth. Puerto Rico is represented by a resident commissioner. The delegates and resident commissioner possess the same powers as other members of the House, except that they may not vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives.

Congress has the power to regulate the size of the House of Representatives, and the size of the House has varied through the years due to the admission of new states and reapportionment following a census. The House of Representatives began with sixty-five members and now, consists of 435 members.
In 1911, Congress passed The Apportionment Act of 1911, also known as 'Public Law 62-5', which says that the United States House of Representatives can have no more than 435 members. Each state, is given at least one representative and the number of representatives per state varies based on population.

There is no fixed numeric formula for the ratio between the population and the number of Representatives; the members of the House will increase as new states are added and the population grows. Madison reasons with those who are against the size of the House of Representatives because they do not trust the legislators in the following quote: "The truth is that in all cases a certain number [of representatives] at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to
guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." He tells the public, no republican government can guarantee that it will be completely free of infringement but the people must also have a certain degree of trust in the government's power to protect them and to ensure the safety of the republic. To further reassure the people, the system of "checks and balances" was put in place to ensure that no branch (the executive, judicial, or legislative) would have more power than the other.

Today, people are no longer concerned with the size of the House because it has been fixed at 435 members since The Apportionment Act of 1911 was passed. But, people are still concerned about the laws/ bills that the House of Representatives is passing. The House can make laws that create new taxes, it aids in determining the fiscal policy, it guides federal spending and taxation etc. The laws made by the House have can directly affect the population but as Madison said in the Federalist Paper, "Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another" meaning, the Republican government depends on the virtue/trust of the people. "Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form [of government]."

The Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton and his colleagues John Jay and James Madison, were written in the late 1780s to argue in favor of the ratification of the United States Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, which served as the first form of a Constitution for the newly freed country. The Federalist Papers were directed towards the anti-federalists, those who opposed a stronger general government (especially the New York anti-federalists), both to persuade them and to persuade undecided citizens to ratify the Constitution.The first Federalist Paper was published on October 27, 1787 in the New York Independent Journal. The essays argued that the proposed government would preserve the Union and give power to the federal government to act on the interest of the nation.

Federalist No. 66

Federalist No. 66 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the sixty-sixth of "The Federalist Papers". It was published on March 8, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all "The Federalist" papers were published. The title is "Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered".

In this paper, Hamilton addresses specific objections to the power of the Senate to try impeachment cases, a discussion that is continued from the previous paper.

Federalist Paper 66 was written by Alexander Hamilton who represented New York in the Congress under the Articles of Confederation and had served as a deputy from New York at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was titled "Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered" and was published on March 8, 1788 in n the New York Independent Journal under the pseudonym Publius.

There were 3 different responses for the Anti-Federalist Paper. The people who responded were Mr. Joseph Taylor, Mr. William Porter. Mr. Timothy Bloodworth. One of the responses is that none can impeach but the representatives; and the impeachments are to be determined by the senators, who are one of the branches of power which we dread under this Constitution. Another response is that United State shall undoubtedly, for instance, have a great number of tax-gatherers. If any of these officers shall do wrong, when we come to fundamental principles, we find that we have no way to punish them but by going to Congress, at an immense distance, whither we must carry our witnesses. Another response was that the people wished to be informed, whether this sole power of impeachment, given to the House of Representatives, deprived the state of the power of impeaching any of its members.

Hamilton structures his argument as a series of rebuttals to various anti-Federalist arguments about the Senate having the power to impeach, and also about the Senate's potential to overreach its power. Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to impeach a government official, in effect serving as prosecutor. The Senate has the sole power to conduct impeachment trials, essentially serving as jury and judge. Since 1789 the Senate has tried seventeen federal officials, including two presidents. The first argument he rebuts is the idea that if the Senate acts as a court for impeachments, it encroaches on the power of the judicial branch. He argues that some intermixture of minor forms of power is necessary to prevent greater abuses, and that allowing the Senate to serve as an impeachment court checks and balances the powers of the President and is worth the small encroachment on the power of the Supreme Court.The second argument Hamilton states is that the senate could gain so much power that they could become aristocratic. Hamilton felt that if the senate was given more power than what they have now, then the senate would be able to control too much of the government.The third argument states that "the senators will not be able to impartially judge presidential appointees who they once voted to confirm". Hamilton states that this would allow the senate to be bias and " "evidences of guilt so extraordinary".The last argument is that senators will not be able to impartially judge themselves for the role they play in the ratification of foreign treaties". The senate and not appoint themselves for the position of dealing the foreign treaties. Hamilton felt that this would allow for an unbiased decision when it came to making treaties.

Today, The Federalist Papers are admired for their insights into human nature and the character of republican government. It was likewise praised for its easily understood review of the proposed Constitution's provisions and its persuasive arguments for their efficacy. These papers helped everyone understand why Hamilton, Madison and Jay wanted the Constitution to ratified and what they wanted it to look like.

Its logo is a silhouette of former president and constitution author, James Madison, who co-wrote "The Federalist Papers". Commissioner Paul S. Atkins of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission considered society members "the heirs of James Madison's legacy" in a speech he gave in January 2008 to its lawyers chapter in Dallas, Texas. Madison is generally credited as the father of the constitution and became the fourth president of the United States.

Federalist Society

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, most frequently called the Federalist Society, is an organization of conservatives and libertarians seeking reform of the current legal system of the United States in accordance with a textualist or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Founded in 1982, it is one of the nation's most influential legal organizations.

The organization plays a central role in networking and mentoring young conservative lawyers. According to Amanda Hollis-Brusky, the author of "Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution", the Federalist Society "has evolved into the "de facto" gatekeeper for right-of-center lawyers aspiring to government jobs and federal judgeships under Republican presidents." According to William & Mary Law School professor Neil Devins and Ohio State University professor Lawrence Baum, the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush "aimed to nominate conservative judges, and membership in the Federalist Society was a proxy for adherence to conservative ideology."

The society is a membership organization that features a student division, a lawyers division, and a faculty division. The society currently has chapters at more than 200 United States law schools and claims a membership exceeding 10,000 law students. The society also currently has three undergraduate chapters at colleges or universities without law schools (Rice University, Hillsdale College, and Princeton University). The lawyers division comprises more than 60,000 practicing attorneys (organized as "lawyers chapters" and "practice groups" within the division) in eighty cities. The society is headquartered in Washington, D.C. Through speaking events, lectures, and other activities, it provides a forum for legal experts of opposing views to interact with members of the legal profession, the judiciary, and the legal academy.

The society began at Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, and the University of Chicago Law School in 1982 as a student organization that challenged what its founding members perceived as the orthodox American liberal ideology found in most law schools. The society was started by a group of some of the most prominent conservatives in the country, including Attorney General Edwin Meese, Solicitor General and Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, Indiana congressman David M. McIntosh, Lee Liberman Otis, Energy Secretary and Michigan senator Spencer Abraham, and Steven Calabresi. Its membership has since included Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, John G. Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. The society states that it "is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be."

The society looks to Federalist Paper Number 78 for an articulation of the virtue of judicial restraint, as written by Alexander Hamilton: "It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature... The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."

The society's name is said to have been based on the eighteenth-century Federalist Party; however, James Madison associated with Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party in opposition to Federalist Party policies borne from a loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The society's views are more closely associated with the general meaning of Federalism (particularly the New Federalism) and the content of the "Federalist Papers" than with the later Federalist Party.

The society was founded in 1982, thanks to sizable donations. Writes Jane Mayer:

Donors to the Federalist Society include Google, Chevron, Charles G. and David H. Koch; the family foundation of Richard Mellon Scaife; and the Mercer family.

The society holds a national lawyers convention each year in Washington, D.C. It is one of the highest profile conservative legal events of the year. Speakers have included former ACLU head Nadine Strossen, business executive and 2016 Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, former BB&T chairman John Allison, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and U.S. Senator Mike Lee.

The "Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy" is the Federalist Society's official journal, and a subscription is provided to members.

The Federalist Society has been described as influential during the presidencies of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump. Members of the organization have sought to curtail abortion rights, roll back regulation of private property, private business, campaign finance and guns, repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and have argued that courts should not take race into account when making decisions, and that civil rights cases involving racially discriminatory policies should not consider race, but rather the individuals involved.

A 2008 study found that Federalist Society members appointed by Republican administrations to the U.S. Courts of Appeals have more conservative voting records than non-members. Critics say the organization favors judicial activism, in particular on social issues. Many members of the Federalist Society favor overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that permits abortion. The organization tends to favor judges who take conservative stances on abortion rights and other social issues. Members of the Federalist Society have presented oral arguments in every single abortion case that has been before the Supreme Court since 1992. The Federalist Society shares strong ties with political advocacy groups within the Christian family values movement.

According to the authors of "Building Coalitions, Making Policy: The Politics of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Presidencies" (2012), "Federalist Society members declaim the notion that they are united around a particular philosophy," although many members have been associated with textualist or originalist methods of constitutional interpretation. Judicial restraint tends to align with conservative views on abortion and LGBT rights, while "Critics point out that conservatives are typically not so intent on following 'original meaning' in areas such as affirmative action, executive powers, free speech and federalism."

The Federalist Society opposes regulation of private property and private businesses, and has argued that specific regulations must be enacted by legislatures rather than courts or executives that interpret existing statutes and powers.

The ideas of the Federalist Society were "at the intellectual heart" of "King v. Burwell", which challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, with members of the group playing a "mostly behind-the-scenes part in King — and in many of the most significant conservative legal victories of the last 30 years." In her book on the history of the Federalist Society, political scientist Amanda Hollis-Brusky writes that the Federalist Society "invested in the litigation efforts against the ACA well before the Act was signed into law—before there was even anything concrete to litigate against."

Members of the Federalist Society have argued that courts should not take race into account when making decisions. For example, members of the group have argued that civil rights cases involving racially discriminatory policies should not consider race, but rather the individuals involved. Federalist Society members were extensively involved with the "Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1" ruling where the Supreme Court struck down voluntary desegration plans in several jurisdictions. The authors of "The Federalist Society: How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals" write that "Conservatives believe, however, that it is not appropriate for the government to promote racial balance. The essence of the conservative position is that there is no legal difference between considering race or gender for purposes of exclusion and considering race or gender for purposes of inclusion. They argue that both are harmful and make racial problems worse. On the other hand, many civil rights advocates believe that because our history has been one of the systematic exclusion of racial minorities and women from social, political, and economic institutions and from positions of power and influence, the conservative view leads to the continuation of exclusion and retards society’s ability to move toward inclusion."

The Federalist Society has forcefully argued against regulations on guns. Members hold that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to guns, as opposed to being a collective right to arms. At the time of the Federalist Society's creation and since the 19th century, the Supreme Court and academics had held a more restrictive view of gun rights. The Federalist Society was influential in shifting legal views on gun rights, culminating in the Supreme Court ruling "District of Columbia v. Heller" which struck down gun regulations in the District of Columbia that required guns to be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock".

The Federalist Society had a significant influence on the "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling which seriously weakened regulations on campaign finance.

The Federalist Society is a client of the public relations firm Creative Response Concepts (CRC) Public Relations.

Legal positions in the Bush administration were also overwhelmingly staffed with Federalist Society members. Approximately half of Bush's nominees for appellate court judgeships were Federalist Society members. The Bush administration was harshly criticized for the decision to nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, with conservative critics arguing that she lacked a consistently conservative track record, did not have Federalist Society "credentials" and for her purported ties to the American Bar Association (which conservatives considered to be liberal). After conservative outcry, Miers withdrew the nomination. The Bush administration nominated Samuel Alito, a Federalist Society member with a consistent conservative track record who was active in Federalist Society circles, instead to the Supreme Court.

Members of the society helped to encourage President George W. Bush’s decision to terminate a nearly half-century-old practice of rating qualifications for office for judicial nominees by the American Bar Association. Since the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the American Bar Association provided the service to presidents of both parties and the nation by vetting the qualifications of those under consideration for lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary. The society alleged that the bar association showed a liberal bias in its recommendations. Examples given included that while former Supreme Court clerks nominated to the Court of Appeals by Democrats had an average rating of slightly below "well qualified", similar Republican nominees were rated on average as only "qualified/well qualified." In addition the bar association gave Ronald Reagan's judicial nominees Richard Posner and Frank H. Easterbrook its lowest possible ratings of "qualified/not qualified", and Judges Posner and Easterbrook have gone on to become the two most highly cited judges in the federal appellate judiciary.

The Federalist Society has been influential in the Trump administration, hand-selecting Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and recruiting a slate of conservative judges to fill vacancies throughout the federal judiciary. The society helped to assemble the list of 21 people from which Donald Trump said he would choose a nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. Nine of the 21 individuals spoke at the society's annual convention in late November 2016, while nearly all of the others were in attendance. Federalist Society members have generally chosen not to criticize President Donald Trump and "Politico" described the Federalist Society membership as "elite, conservative lawyers who have generally chosen to give Trump a pass on his breaches of long-cherished legal norms and traditions in exchange for the gift of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch." Federalist Society executive vice president Leonard Leo said: "What President Trump has done with judicial selection and appointments is probably at the very center of his legacy, and may well be his greatest accomplishments thus far."

In May 2018, the Federalist Society hosted a phone call entitled "examining the legality of the Mueller Investigation", where one of the featured speakers has argued that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election is unconstitutional.

Notable members of the society have included:

Federalist No. 59 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the fifty-ninth of The Federalist Papers. It was published on February 22, 1788, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist Papers were published. This is the first of three papers discussing the power of Congress over the election of its own members, the other two papers in this series being Federalist No. 60 and Federalist No. 61. The title of the paper is "Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members".

Federalist No. 59

Within this paper, Hamilton argues that the federal government should be the only entity within the government as a whole that can regulate its own elections, rather than the states or any other entity being able to regulate those elections. Allowing the states to regulate the elections of the federal government would leave existence, of a federalist Union entirely at the mercy of those states.

Hamilton argued that the Article I, Section 4, specifically the first clause, of the constitution was completely defensible and important for the very core of the federal government because according to him in Federalist 59:

Every Government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation.

The clause states:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

As Hamilton states:

Suppose an Article had been introduced into the Constitution, empowering the United States to regulate the elections of the particular States, would any man have hesitated to condemn it, both as an unwarrantable transposition of power, and as a premeditated engine for the destruction of the State Governments?

This statement by Hamilton pinpoints the exact point that he is trying to convince the American people of. If they, the people, would condemn this supposed article, then they should also condemn an article that would do the same thing, but in reverse. An article that would have allowed the states to regulate the elections of the federal government. This would the union at a great risk as Hamilton notes:

Nothing can be more evident, than that an exclusive power of regulating elections for the National Government, in the hands of the State Legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy. They could at any moment annihilate it, by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to administer its affairs.

If an abuse of power would be condemned one way, then it should be condemned the other way as well. If the states were allowed to regulate the elections of the Federal House of Representatives then the legislatures of a few important states could enter into a conspiracy to prevent an election, and then this could result in the Union's destruction. Hamilton was not fully against the state legislatures having some power over the federal government. He fully defended the state's' power to appoint members of the senate. He saw this as a necessary check on the power of the federal government, a "necessary evil." As he states:

So far as that construction may expose the Union to the possibility of injury from the State Legislatures, it is an evil; but it is an evil which could not have been avoided without excluding the States, in their political capacities, wholly from a place in the organization of the National Government.If this had been done, it would doubtless have been interpreted into an entire dereliction of the Fœderal principle; and would certainly have deprived the State Governments of that absolute safeguard.

Each state only has the power to appoint two senators and no more. No single state or even a few states would be able to destroy the union by not appointing senators. The states would have to work together to be able to destroy the union in this way and that is a scenario that extremely unlikely to happen.

Main Article: 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution

In 1913 the 17th amendment was passed and signed into law. This amendment effectively defeated Hamilton's argument on the matter of the election of senators and the necessary evil that he saw as a check by the states on the power of the federal government. Specifically, Article 1, Amendment 17,

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."

The anonymous author of Cato No. VII argues that Article 1 Section 4 of the constitution should be removed. By giving congressional power over the regulation of elections they can choose to do anything thing they desire. As stated by the author:

Congress may establish a place, or places, at either the extremes, center, or outer parts of the states; at a time and season too, when it may be very inconvenient to attend; and by these means destroy the rights of election.

As argued below by the author, although the states choose the senators, the House of Representatives chooses the time and place that the senators are chosen.

To exemplify this the states are to appoint senators and electors for choosing of a president; but the time is to be under the direction of congress. Now, suppose they were to omit the appointment of senators and electors, though congress was to appoint the time, which might [as] well be apprehended as the omission of regulations for the election of members of the house of representatives, provided they had that power; or suppose they were not to meet at all: of course, the government cannot proceed in its exercise.

As argued below, if the House would be able to regulate its own elections, they could choose to have elections anywhere they wanted to. They could move voting precincts into areas where there would be almost no one the vote for them, basically allowing the representatives to choose their voters.

It is a good rule, in the construction of a contract, to support, that what may be done will be; therefore, in considering this subject, you are to suppose, that in the exercise of this government, a regulation of congress will be made, for holding an election for the whole state at Poughkeepsie, at New York, or, perhaps, at Fort Stanwix: who will then be the actual electors for the house of representatives? Very few more than those who may live in the vicinity of these places.

The Federalist (later known as The Federalist Papers) is a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution. The first 77 of these essays were published serially in the "Independent Journal", the "New York Packet", and "The Daily Advertiser" between October 1787 and April 1788. A two-volume compilation of these 77 essays and eight others was published as The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787 by publishing firm J. & A. McLean in March and May 1788. The collection was commonly known as "The Federalist" until the name "The Federalist Papers" emerged in the 20th century.

The Federalist Papers

The authors of "The Federalist" intended to influence the voters to ratify the Constitution. In "Federalist No. 1", they explicitly set that debate in broad political terms:
It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.

"Federalist No. 10" is generally regarded as the most important of the 85 articles from a philosophical perspective. In it, Madison discusses the means of preventing rule by majority faction and advocates a large, commercial republic. This is complemented by "Federalist No. 14", in which Madison takes the measure of the United States, declares it appropriate for an extended republic, and concludes with a memorable defense of the constitutional and political creativity of the Federal Convention. In "Federalist No. 84", Hamilton makes the case that there is no need to amend the Constitution by adding a Bill of Rights, insisting that the various provisions in the proposed Constitution protecting liberty amount to a "bill of rights". "Federalist No. 78", also written by Hamilton, lays the groundwork for the doctrine of judicial review by federal courts of federal legislation or executive acts. "Federalist No. 70" presents Hamilton's case for a one-man chief executive. In "Federalist No. 39", Madison presents the clearest exposition of what has come to be called "Federalism". In "Federalist No. 51", Madison distills arguments for checks and balances in an essay often quoted for its justification of government as "the greatest of all reflections on human nature."

According to historian Richard B. Morris, the essays that make up "The Federalist Papers" are an "incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer."

The Federal Convention sent the proposed Constitution to the Confederation Congress, which in turn submitted it to the states for ratification at the end of September 1787. On September 27, 1787, "Cato" first appeared in the New York press criticizing the proposition; "Brutus" followed on October 18, 1787. These and other articles and public letters critical of the new Constitution would eventually become known as the "Anti-Federalist Papers". In response, Alexander Hamilton decided to launch a measured defense and extensive explanation of the proposed Constitution to the people of the state of New York. He wrote in Federalist No. 1 that the series would "endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention."

Hamilton recruited collaborators for the project. He enlisted John Jay, who after four strong essays (Federalist Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5), fell ill and contributed only one more essay, Federalist No. 64, to the series. Jay also distilled his case into a pamphlet in the spring of 1788, "An Address to the People of the State of New-York"; Hamilton cited it approvingly in Federalist No. 85. James Madison, present in New York as a Virginia delegate to the Confederation Congress, was recruited by Hamilton and Jay and became Hamilton's primary collaborator. Gouverneur Morris and William Duer were also considered. However, Morris turned down the invitation, and Hamilton rejected three essays written by Duer. Duer later wrote in support of the three Federalist authors under the name "Philo-Publius," or "Friend of Publius."

Alexander Hamilton chose the pseudonymous name "Publius". While many other pieces representing both sides of the constitutional debate were written under Roman names, Albert Furtwangler contends that Publius' was a cut above 'Caesar' or 'Brutus' or even 'Cato'. Publius Valerius helped found the ancient republic of Rome. His more famous name, Publicola, meant 'friend of the people'." It was not the first time Hamilton had used this pseudonym: in 1778, he had applied it to three letters attacking fellow Federalist Samuel Chase. Chase's patriotism was questioned when Hamilton revealed that Chase had taken advantage of knowledge gained in Congress to try to dominate the flour market.

At the time of publication, the authors of The Federalist Papers attempted to hide their identities for fear of prosecution. Astute observers, however, correctly discerned the identities of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. Establishing authorial authenticity of the essays that comprise "The Federalist Papers" has not always been clear"." After Alexander Hamilton died in 1804, a list emerged, claiming that he alone had written two-thirds of "The Federalist" essays. Some believe that several of these essays were written by James Madison (No. 49–58 and 62–63). The scholarly detective work of Douglass Adair in 1944 postulated the following assignments of authorship, corroborated in 1964 by a computer analysis of the text:
In six months, a total of 85 articles were written by the three men. Hamilton, who had been a leading advocate of national constitutional reform throughout the 1780s and represented New York at the Constitutional Convention, in 1789 became the first Secretary of the Treasury, a post he held until his resignation in 1795. Madison, who is now acknowledged as the father of the Constitution—despite his repeated rejection of this honor during his lifetime, became a leading member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia (1789–1797), Secretary of State (1801–1809), and ultimately the fourth President of the United States. John Jay, who had been secretary for foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation from 1784 through their expiration in 1789, became the first Chief Justice of the United States in 1789, stepping down in 1795 to accept election as governor of New York, a post he held for two terms, retiring in 1801.

"The Federalist" articles appeared in three New York newspapers: "The Independent Journal", the "New-York Packet", and the "Daily Advertiser", beginning on October 27, 1787. Although written and published with haste, "The Federalist" articles were widely read and greatly influenced the shape of American political institutions. Hamilton, Madison and Jay published the essays at a rapid pace. At times, three to four new essays by Publius appeared in the papers in a single week. Garry Wills observes that this fast pace of production "overwhelmed" any possible response: "Who, given ample time could have answered such a battery of arguments? And no time was given." Hamilton also encouraged the reprinting of the essays in newspapers outside New York state, and indeed they were published in several other states where the ratification debate was taking place. However, they were only irregularly published outside New York, and in other parts of the country they were often overshadowed by local writers.

Because the essays were initially published in New York, most of them begin with the same salutation: "To the People of the State of New York".

The high demand for the essays led to their publication in a more permanent form. On January 1, 1788, the New York publishing firm J. & A. McLean announced that they would publish the first thirty-six essays as a bound volume; that volume was released on March 22, 1788, and was titled "The Federalist" Volume 1. New essays continued to appear in the newspapers; Federalist No. 77 was the last number to appear first in that form, on April 2. A second bound volume containing "Federalist" 37–77 and the yet to be published "Federalist" 78–85 was released on May 28. The last eight papers ("Federalist" 78–85) were republished in the New York newspapers between June 14 and August 16, 1788.

A 1792 French edition ended the collective anonymity of Publius, announcing that the work had been written by "MM Hamilton, Maddisson E Gay", citizens of the State of New York. In 1802, George Hopkins published an American edition that similarly named the authors. Hopkins wished as well that "the name of the writer should be prefixed to each number," but at this point Hamilton insisted that this was not to be, and the division of the essays among the three authors remained a secret.
The first publication to divide the papers in such a way was an 1810 edition that used a list left by Hamilton to associate the authors with their numbers; this edition appeared as two volumes of the compiled "Works of Hamilton". In 1818, Jacob Gideon published a new edition with a new listing of authors, based on a list provided by Madison. The difference between Hamilton's list and Madison's formed the basis for a dispute over the authorship of a dozen of the essays.

Both Hopkins's and Gideon's editions incorporated significant edits to the text of the papers themselves, generally with the approval of the authors. In 1863, Henry Dawson published containing the original text of the papers, arguing that they should be preserved as they were written in that particular historical moment, not as edited by the authors years later.

Modern scholars generally use the text prepared by Jacob E. Cooke for his 1961 edition of "The Federalist"; this edition used the newspaper texts for essay numbers 1–76 and the McLean edition for essay numbers 77–85.

The authorship of seventy-three of "The Federalist" essays is fairly certain. Twelve of these essays are disputed over by some scholars, though the modern consensus is that Madison wrote essays Nos. 49–58, with Nos. 18–20 being products of a collaboration between him and Hamilton; No. 64 was by John Jay. The first open designation of which essay belonged to whom was provided by Hamilton who, in the days before his ultimately fatal gun duel with Aaron Burr, provided his lawyer with a list detailing the author of each number. This list credited Hamilton with a full sixty-three of the essays (three of those being jointly written with Madison), almost three-quarters of the whole, and was used as the basis for an 1810 printing that was the first to make specific attribution for the essays.
Madison did not immediately dispute Hamilton's list, but provided his own list for the 1818 Gideon edition of "The Federalist". Madison claimed twenty-nine numbers for himself, and he suggested that the difference between the two lists was "owing doubtless to the hurry in which [Hamilton's] memorandum was made out." A known error in Hamilton's list—Hamilton incorrectly ascribed No. 54 to John Jay, when in fact, Jay wrote No. 64—provided some evidence for Madison's suggestion.

Statistical analysis has been undertaken on several occasions in attempts to accurately identify the author of each individual essay. After examining word choice and writing style, studies generally agree that the disputed essays were written by James Madison. However, there are notable exceptions maintaining that some of the essays which are now widely attributed to Madison were, in fact, collaborative efforts.

"The Federalist Papers" were written to support the ratification of the Constitution, specifically in New York. Whether they succeeded in this mission is questionable. Separate ratification proceedings took place in each state, and the essays were not reliably reprinted outside of New York; furthermore, by the time the series was well underway, a number of important states had already ratified it, for instance Pennsylvania on December 12. New York held out until July 26; certainly "The Federalist" was more important there than anywhere else, but Furtwangler argues that it "could hardly rival other major forces in the ratification contests"—specifically, these forces included the personal influence of well-known Federalists, for instance Hamilton and Jay, and Anti-Federalists, including Governor George Clinton. Further, by the time New York came to a vote, ten states had already ratified the Constitution and it had thus already passed—only nine states had to ratify it for the new government to be established among them; the ratification by Virginia, the tenth state, placed pressure on New York to ratify. In light of that, Furtwangler observes, "New York's refusal would make that state an odd outsider."

Only 19 Federalists were elected to New York's ratification convention, compared to the Anti-Federalists' 46 delegates. While New York did indeed ratify the Constitution on July 26, the lack of public support for pro-Constitution Federalists has led historian John Kaminski to suggest that the impact of "The Federalist" on New York citizens was "negligible".

As for Virginia, which only ratified the Constitution at its convention on June 25, Hamilton writes in a letter to Madison that the collected edition of "The Federalist" had been sent to Virginia; Furtwangler presumes that it was to act as a "debater's handbook for the convention there", though he claims that this indirect influence would be a "dubious distinction". Probably of greater importance to the Virginia debate, in any case, were George Washington's support for the proposed Constitution and the presence of Madison and Edmund Randolph, the governor, at the convention arguing for ratification.

In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton listed six topics to be covered in the subsequent articles:

Furtwangler notes that as the series grew, this plan was somewhat changed. The fourth topic expanded into detailed coverage of the individual articles of the Constitution and the institutions it mandated, while the two last topics were merely touched on in the last essay.

The papers can be broken down by author as well as by topic. At the start of the series, all three authors were contributing; the first twenty papers are broken down as eleven by Hamilton, five by Madison and four by Jay. The rest of the series, however, is dominated by three long segments by a single writer: No. 21 through No. 36 by Hamilton, No. 37 through 58 by Madison, written while Hamilton was in Albany, and No. 65 through the end by Hamilton, published after Madison had left for Virginia.

"The Federalist Papers" (specifically Federalist No. 84) are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was originally controversial because the Constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather it listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Alexander Hamilton, the author of Federalist No. 84, feared that such an enumeration, once written down explicitly, would later be interpreted as a list of the "only" rights that people had.

However, Hamilton's opposition to a Bill of Rights was far from universal. Robert Yates, writing under the pseudonym "Brutus", articulated this view point in the so-called Anti-Federalist No. 84, asserting that a government unrestrained by such a bill could easily devolve into tyranny. References in "The Federalist" and in the ratification debates warn of demagogues of the variety who through divisive appeals would aim at tyranny. "The Federalist" begins and ends with this issue. In the final paper Hamilton offers "a lesson of moderation to all sincere lovers of the Union, and ought to put them on their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a successful demagogue". The matter was further clarified by the Ninth Amendment.

Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use "The Federalist Papers" as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers. They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in "Hines v. Davidowitz") to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision "Calder v. Bull", apparently the first decision to mention "The Federalist")., "The Federalist" had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.

The amount of deference that should be given to "The Federalist Papers" in constitutional interpretation has always been somewhat controversial. As early as 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous case "McCulloch v. Maryland", that "the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained." In a letter to Thomas Ritchie in 1821, he stated that "the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses."

The colors used to highlight the rows correspond to the author of the paper.