A document that would be deeply rooted in the federal system, which can be loosely defined as the division of legitimate power between a central government and regional government, such as the states. Those against the proposed Constitution became known as the Anti-Federalists who criticized the new powers that would be granted to the central government. Those who were in favor of the new constitution were the Federalists. The point of the Federalist Papers can now be revisited in the context of the ratification debates. New York was a deeply divided state that would play a crucial role in whether or not the new Constitution would be ratified. Alexander Hamilton, a New Yorker himself and the main contributor of the Federalist papers, focused the arguments for Federalism directly toward New York citizens ("After the Fact: Virginia, New York, and "The Federalist Papers"").Two points that were very important to the Federalist agenda highlighted in these papers were the need for a strong government to effectively participate in foreign affairs and the concept of the separation of powers ("After the Fact: Virginia, New York, and "The Federalist Papers""). This new political theory is also commonly referred to as checks and balances. The idea of dividing power into separate branches amongst the government on a Federal level was designed to soothe the qualms of a ‘too …show more content…
Three forms of originality have been referred to through countless academic documents are the original intent of the Framers, the original understanding of the ratifiers, and the original objective meaning of the Constitution. As for the original intent of the Framers, both Hamilton and Madison attended and played roles in the convention to create the Constitution. They both most likely knew the opinion of others who wrote the Constitution and exactly what they believed that document was supposed to communicate, therefore it’s logical the Federalist Papers were written with the Framer’s intent in mind. The Supreme Court has spoken out several times on the issue of original understanding of the ratifiers. Once referring to the Federalist to be “usually regarded as indicative of the original understanding of the ratifiers of the Constitution.” (Printz v. United States) Judge Lawrence Silberman also described them as “more important as an interpretative aid” than even the records from the Constitutional Convention “because they, unlike the records of the Convention, were available to the state ratifying conventions.” (Re Sealed Case) It’s easy to deduce from that argument that those informed during the ratification process agreed the Federalist Papers stood true to