Federalist No. 84

Federalist No. 84 is an essay in the Federalist Papers arguing against a proposed Bill of Rights for the Constitution. Published in 1788 in the New York Independent Journal, the essay advances legal and political reasoning about constitutional structure and individual rights. It belongs to a cluster of writings that shaped debates during the Constitutional Convention and the ratification campaigns in the New York and other states.

Background and publication

Written amid the post-Revolutionary War era, the essay appeared in a period marked by disputes among proponents of the Articles of Confederation and advocates for a new charter like the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Publication occurred alongside contemporaneous essays by James Madison and John Jay in newspapers including the New York Packet and the New York Daily Advertiser. The essay responds to criticisms voiced by opponents associated with the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Samuel Bryan, who pressed for explicit guarantees akin to the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Massachusetts Constitution. Its circulation influenced debates in state ratifying conventions in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York.

Authorship and context

Authored by Alexander Hamilton, the essay is part of the collaborative body of seventeen essays written by Hamilton for the Federalist series that also included contributions by James Madison and John Jay. Hamilton wrote under the pseudonym Publius, echoing Revolutionary-era appeals to classical republicanism promoted by figures like Cato the Younger and the framers influenced by Montesquieu and John Locke. The immediacy of the essay reflects Hamilton’s role in the Convention and his ongoing engagement with political actors such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and delegates who participated in debates at the Philadelphia Convention. Hamilton’s framing also responds to legal traditions stemming from the English Bill of Rights, the Glorious Revolution, and colonial charters underpinning the constitutional settlement.

Arguments and themes

The essay advances a cluster of constitutional arguments: that a written enumeration like the Bill of Rights is unnecessary, potentially dangerous, and redundant given the structural protections in the proposed Constitution. Hamilton claims that the Constitution’s textual protections and mechanisms—such as separation of powers advocated by Montesquieu and checks popularized in political thought associated with John Locke—safeguard liberties without a catalogue of rights. He warns that listing specific rights could imply the exclusion of other rights, a concern informed by legal debates akin to those in Blackstone's Commentaries and jurisprudence in English common law jurisdictions. The essay addresses the balance between federal authority and state sovereignty exemplified in disputes like those involving the Federalist Party and its opponents, and situates its claims within republican theory promoted by figures such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson despite their later divergences.

Reception and influence

Contemporaries such as George Mason and Anti-Federalist writers criticized the essay, arguing for explicit protections similar to provisions in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Massachusetts Constitution. Debates in the Virginia ratifying convention and the New York convention reflected divergent receptions: Federalist advocates like John Jay and James Madison pressed Hamilton’s reasoning, while Anti-Federalists mobilized pamphlets and speeches. The controversy contributed to the eventual adoption of amendments during the First Congress leading to the Bill of Rights in 1791, a compromise shaped by actors including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and state ratifying demands from North Carolina and Rhode Island.

Modern interpretation and legacy

Modern scholarship situates the essay within constitutional interpretation debates involving originalism associated with scholars like Antonin Scalia and living constitutionalism associated with jurists such as William J. Brennan Jr.. Legal historians examine its influence on early Supreme Court decisions under justices like John Marshall and later jurisprudence by Joseph Story and others interpreting the relationship between written rights and structural safeguards. The essay remains a touchstone in discussions of constitutional design in comparative studies with documents like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights, and in debates among contemporary commentators at institutions such as Harvard University, Yale University, and the University of Oxford. Its legacy endures in scholarly works on the Constitution and in curricular offerings across law schools including Columbia Law School and New York University School of Law.

Category:The Federalist Papers