Although I have had a keen interest in politics since 1964, I didn’t study—or even read—the Constitution until I’d been studying The Federalist Papers for several months, in 1995. I mention this because I don’t want anyone to feel bad because they haven’t read the United States Constitution.
Also, there is no reason to read the Constitution before starting to read The Federalist Papers. Let me explain.
The US Constitution is one of the most specific and precise contracts ever written. When people write contracts, they often think that to be specific, they have to use a lot of words and explanations. (There are apartment leases that are longer than the Constitution.)
However, the more words that are used in a contract, the easier it becomes to find contradictions within the document. Even though we have a common language, that doesn’t mean that we all understand it in the same way. The Federalist Papers talk about this difficulty with language:
“Humans use words to express ideas. Clear expression requires well-formed ideas and the appropriate words. But no language has words and phrases for every complex idea. And many words have several meanings. Therefore, the definition of even a precise subject can be inaccurate because words are inaccurate. This unavoidable inaccuracy grows worse as the subject becomes more complex or novel.
“When God, Himself, talks to mankind in our language, His meaning—brilliant as it must be—is made dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated.
“There are three sources of vague and incorrect definitions: (1) indistinctness of the subject, (2) the brain’s imperfections, and (3) the language’s inadequacies.” Federalist Paper #37 [paragraphs 10-11]*
An example of this problem: Over the years, I’ve seen people argue about the fact that the Constitution in titled, “The Constitution of the United States,” but at the end of the Preamble to the Constitution it says: “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [I don’t remember the argument over these prepositions, but it shows how complicated language can be. I find it interesting that this particular issue does not appear in The Federalist Papers.]
The Papers do talk about how the word “constitution” creates problems. The Convention of States in 1787 was convened:
“(1) to frame a national government that can (2) meet the needs of government and the Union, and (3) change the Articles of Confederation into a form that accomplishes these purposes.” Federalist Paper #40 [paragraph 7]
Some people in 1788 (and even up to today!) believed that the Convention had no authority to create a constitution. Why? Because the convention was “supposed to” amend the Articles of Confederation. Federalist Paper #40 addresses this issue directly. I find it a compelling argument, which ends by saying:
Opponents of the proposed Constitution say that the convention exceeded its power. The only change was the ratification process, which is rarely mentioned by the objectors. Otherwise, the charge has no foundation.
And if they did exceed their powers, they were not only justified but also required. They were servants of their country, who used their liberty to fulfill their mission.
And finally, even if they violated both their powers and their duty in proposing a Constitution, it should be ratified, if it seems to meet the goals and promote the happiness of the people of America. We are investigating whether this describes the Constitution. Federalist Paper #40 [paragraph 19]
Because of these “language” issues, I think that starting to read The Federalist Papers before reading the Constitution is very helpful. I would often read a Paper, then read the section of the Constitution that is being discussed, so I could fully understand the discussed issue.
For example, when I read that the “necessary and proper” clause had been “vehemently denounced,” I found myself automatically going to the Constitution to see where it was, what it said, and what it seemed to mean in the context of the Constitution.
The Constitution creates the federal government. Unlike previous governments, in the United States we believe the people have all rights and responsibilities. Then we surrender a few rights to give the government enough power to keep us safe. We are the source of all governmental powers.
People are the source of all government power. Government gets all its power from the constitution, which gets its power from the people. If government’s powers need to be changed or one branch of government encroaches on the authorities of another branch, republican theory says that the people—the original authority—should make the corrections. Therefore, only the people can declare the constitution’s true meaning and enforce it.” Federalist Paper #49 [paragraph 3]*
…If the federal government should overreach the just bounds of its authority, making tyrannical use of its powers, the people, who created it, must appeal to the standard they have formed [the Constitution] and correct the injury done to the Constitution as needs may suggest and prudence justify. The Constitutional propriety of a law must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded... Federalist Paper #33 [paragraph 6]
Therefore, the people need to know “the constitution’s true meaning.” I maintain that The Federalist Papers hold the answers. They were written to explain the Constitution to the people of New York State before the ratification vote.
As we understand the Constitution’s true meaning, we can be informed voters, and use persuasion to influence our representatives and senators.
*The Federalist Papers: Modern English Edition Two: Webster, 2008.
The United States Constitution: Annotated with The Federalist Papers In Modern English: Webster, Mary E: 9781450590501: Amazon.com: Books