Paper85

This paper begins by summing up all of the ideas presented in the prior Federalist Papers because this is the concluding one. //Publius// begins by comparing the state governments’ to that of the national government and quotes his previous essay, "the analogy of the proposed government to your own State constitution," and "the additional security which this adoption will afford to republican government, to liberty, and to property," and says that he has already said all there is to about these topics and all he can do now is “ repeat, in a more dilated form, what has been heretofore said.” //Publius// explains that the Constitution resembles the government of the state of New York in its flaws as well as its strengths. This is ironic because among the people who strongly oppose the new Constitution, are people who are content with their state government even though they are proven to have the same vulnerabilities. It is explained that the National government is needed for various reasons including to settle disputes between states with a military, and for protection from foreign countries. //Publius// goes on to remind his readers that the majority of the country already supports the Constitution for reasons states in previous papers. It is stated that the Constitution is “ not a claim to absolute perfection.” This shows that the framers of the Constitution as well as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the authors of the Federalist Papers, know that the document is not perfect and still has its flaws, but that it is as close to flawless as possible. Hamilton explains that no one does not believe that the “system is good” and that the delay of ratifying the Constitution is highly unnecessary. It is explained that it will be easier to make amendments to the Constitution in the future, than to change it as it stands. This is because only two-thirds of the states have to ratify the amendment while all states have to approve of a change to the Constitution now. “ There would then be no necessity for management or compromise” to an amendment, 2/3 of the states would just have to approve of it; it is much simpler than altering a whole document. //Publius// concludes by stating “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle. The establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy, to the completion of which I look forward with trembling anxiety.” Hamilton dreads the consequences of “new attempts” because “powerful individuals…are enemies to a general national government in every possible shape.”  2. **//__Identify the main objective:__//**
 * // 1.  //****//__ Summary: __//**

The main objective Publius was trying to accomplish through this paper was to make explanations to all of his previous suggestions he made in other papers. Being the last Federalist Paper, Hamilton presented general, but overall strong reasons why the Constitution should be ratified and that there is no sense in waiting. The point was made that there were many similarities between the Constitution and the state governments of the time, especially that of New York. Many Anti-federalists, who opposed the constitution, greatly supported state governments. That is very ironic since the state government and proposed Constitution are nearly identical is strengths and flaws, why one would support state governments and not the Constitution. The overall main objective of Federalist Paper 85 was to convince Anti-federalists and New York to favor the Constitution and present reasons why it is vital to the 13 states.

 3. **//__ The strongest arguments: __//** One of the strongest arguments is the fact that the Constitution greatly resembles the government of New York. They choose New York in particular because one of the main goals of the Federalist Papers was to have New York in particular to vote in favor of the Constitution. Hamilton uses simple reasoning to explain that the government of the state of New York is nearly identical to the Constitution. He explains how the same flaws exist and it does not make any sense to support the state government and not the Constitution. Another one of the strongest points made is the fact that the national government will need the power to settle disputes between states. The national government will also need the power to have a military to protect the country against foreign nations. One of the final and strongest arguments made is that the act of passing an amendment to the Constitution will be much easier than to alter the document as it is. This is because only two-thirds of the states have to agree for an amendment to be passed, but for a change to be made to the Constitution, you need all of the states to agree. This shows that it is very possible for a change to easily be made to the Constitution if found necessary.

Anti-federalists overall oppose the idea of a strong central government. They still fear tyranny and the fact that one person from a state other than theirs has power over them. They are trying to counter the argument that the Constitution isn’t easily changeable once it is ratified. They do this by explaining the facts that it will be even easier to amend once ratified because only 2/3 of the states have to agree upon it.
 * // 4.  //****//__ Opposing arguments of the Anti-federalists: __//**

 5. **//__ Assess the validity of their argument: __//** The argument of Publius is very valid. All points are made that prove to the Anti-federalists that they can trust the Constitution. The Anti-federalist argument is now very flawed because all points of their argument now has a reasonable answer why the Constitution is safe and necessary to ratify. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay address all aspects of the Anti-federalists skepticism about ratifying the Constitution, there are no obvious flaws in their argument present in Federalist Paper 85.

 6. **//__ To what extent do these arguments/issues exist today: __//** These arguments are not a problem today since the Constitution has been ratified over 200 years ago. The arguments were settled when the Constitution was ratified. Amendments have since then been passed and repealed, that system has worked flawlessly. A military has also been present to settle interstate disputes or when needed to control revolutions such as in the 60s when citizens revolted against the Vietnam War. The ability of the country to declare and go to war has also not been a problem. The country was given the power to have a military to defend it as a result of the Constitution. Since then it has been proven necessary many times for the United States of America to have a military to defend it because the country has gone to war multiple times since the ratification of the Constitution.