Have you studied history?
Do you know all that went in to forming this great Country?
I thought it would be fun to start re-examining some of our founding history, but to do it in a way that is relevant today and makes sense.
So I’m going to do my best to make history come alive for you!
Have you heard about The Federalist Papers?
The Federalist Papers were a series of articles written during the founding of this Country, advocating for why we needed a National Constitution.
You might even say it’s similar to what we do here today with WLTReport.
Publishing articles to advocate for the things that will make our Nation strong and thrive for centuries.
That’s what they were doing with The Federalist Papers.
But they were written 250 years ago and some of the language doesn’t always translate well to what we’re used to in 2025, so I’m going to translate them and make them come alive.
First I’m going to give you the original text, and then I’m going to explain it to you and give you a re-written version written in modern day 2025 language that will be much easier to understand.
ORIGINAL:
Federalist No. 45
The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
For the Independent Journal
Author: James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
Having shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States.
The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must grow out of wars between the States, in a certain event; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous to urge, as an objection to a government without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape—that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, reject the plan. Were the union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered is the question before us.
It has been urged and echoed, that the power “necessary and proper” for executing the powers positively granted, is an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the government of the Union. The true meaning of this clause has been discussed and settled in another place. The result of that discussion is, that the clause is merely a declaration, for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those powers otherwise granted are included in the grant itself; and that the grant ought to be construed as broadly as may be required for the execution of the powers of the government, and as narrowly as may be consistent with the original meaning of the grant.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.
If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable branches of federal administration, are all vested in the existing Congress by the Articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them. The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens. The latter will be more likely to be satisfied; and the States will be more likely to be relieved, by the change which substitutes the activity of the general government in place of the coercion of the States for the same object.
If the States be not thrown into such a situation by the federal government as will constrain them to conform to the dictates of the general authority, and if the federal government be restrained within the bounds which keep them within the general power granted to them, the people will find themselves served equally by both levels of government.
EXPLANATION:
Summary of Federalist No. 45
In Federalist No. 45, James Madison addresses concerns that the federal government’s powers under the proposed Constitution would overpower state governments, undermining their sovereignty. He argues that this fear is unfounded, emphasizing several key concepts:
The Purpose of the Federal Government: The federal government exists to ensure the peace, liberty, and safety of the people. It is designed to protect against external threats, internal conflicts, and factions that might endanger stability.
The Relationship Between Federal and State Powers: Madison asserts that the Constitution grants the federal government only powers necessary for national concerns, such as defense, foreign affairs, and regulation of interstate commerce. All other powers remain with the states, which retain significant autonomy over local matters.
The Supremacy of Public Welfare: The ultimate goal of any government is the happiness and welfare of the people. If a stronger federal government is essential to achieving this, it is justified—even if it slightly diminishes the states’ sovereignty.
Limited Federal Power: Madison highlights that the federal government’s powers are “few and defined,” while state powers are “numerous and indefinite,” applying to the daily lives and property of citizens.
Checks and Balances: The balance between federal and state powers is maintained through the Constitution’s design, ensuring neither dominates the other.
Application to Modern Contexts
Many of the principles Madison articulated remain relevant today, especially in ongoing debates over the balance of power between federal and state governments. Here are a few examples of how these concepts apply to contemporary issues:
1. Public Health Policies:
Federal vs. State Response to COVID-19: During the pandemic, debates erupted over whether the federal government or individual states should lead in managing public health measures, such as mask mandates and vaccine distribution. Madison’s emphasis on the states’ powers (“numerous and indefinite”) aligns with the idea that health policies often fall under state jurisdiction, while federal involvement can unify efforts in emergencies.
2. Federal Oversight of State Actions:
Abortion Laws Post-Dobbs Decision: With the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the question of abortion rights has largely shifted to the states. This echoes Madison’s argument that powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states. However, debates over whether federal protections should still exist highlight ongoing tensions.
3. Infrastructure and Funding:
Federal Investments in State Projects: Recent infrastructure bills involve significant federal funding for projects traditionally managed by states. Critics argue this infringes on state autonomy, while supporters cite Madison’s principle that federal intervention is justified when it serves the public good on a national scale.
4. Federal Election Standards vs. State Control:
Election Laws and Voting Rights: States have broad powers to administer elections, but federal proposals like the For the People Act aim to set national standards. This raises questions about balancing federal oversight with state sovereignty, a core theme of Madison’s essay.
5. Climate Change Policy:
National vs. Local Efforts: Climate change requires coordinated federal action, but states have taken the lead with their own initiatives (e.g., California’s emissions standards). This reflects Madison’s framework of states handling local concerns while federal powers address broader, cross-state issues.
Relevance of Madison’s Vision Today
Madison’s argument that federal powers are “few and defined” often serves as a foundational principle for proponents of states’ rights. However, modern complexities—like global pandemics, environmental crises, and national security threats—test the limits of this balance. While the Constitution provides a framework, tensions between federal and state governments continue to evolve, showing that Madison’s vision remains both vital and contested in shaping the American political landscape.
REWRITE:
Now I’m going to give you a rewrite of the paper, written in language that’s easy to understand today:
Federalist No. 45
The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
By James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
I’ve already explained why each power given to the federal government is both necessary and appropriate. Now, we need to ask another question: Will the total amount of power given to the federal government be dangerous to the authority left for the state governments?
Some people who are against the Constitution haven’t started by asking what powers the federal government truly needs to do its job. Instead, they’re focused on what might happen to the states because of these powers. But let’s remember what we’ve already proven: the Union is essential to keeping the people of America safe—from foreign threats, from conflicts between states, and from dangerous groups that could harm our liberty. It also protects us from needing big armies between states, which would lead to constant wars. In short, the Union is vital for America’s happiness and success.
So, is it really fair to argue that we shouldn’t have a federal government—one we need to keep the Union intact—just because it might reduce some of the states’ power? Think about it: Was the American Revolution fought so state governments could hold onto power, or was it fought so the people could enjoy peace, liberty, and safety? Was all the sacrifice—blood, treasure, and effort—just so state governments could have fancy titles and sovereignty? That’s not why we fought.
We’ve heard the dangerous idea in Europe that people exist to serve their kings. Are we now saying something just as bad here? That the happiness of the people should be sacrificed so state governments can keep their authority? No government—state or federal—is valuable unless it serves the people’s happiness. If this Constitution worked against the public good, I’d tell you to reject it. If the Union wasn’t needed for America’s happiness, I’d tell you to break it apart. But if some of the states’ power has to be sacrificed to keep the Union and protect the people, that’s a fair trade.
Some critics claim the Constitution gives the federal government unlimited power through the “necessary and proper” clause. That’s not true. This clause is simply there to clarify that the government can do what’s needed to carry out its other powers. It doesn’t let the federal government make up new powers.
The federal government’s powers under the Constitution are few and specific. They mostly deal with big, national issues like war, peace, foreign trade, and defense. Most other powers—those that affect daily life, property, and local laws—are left to the states. The states’ powers are broad and cover everything people need in their everyday lives.
The federal government will mostly be active during times of war or national danger. The state governments, on the other hand, will take the lead during times of peace and safety—which will likely be most of the time. So, state governments will naturally have more influence and a closer connection to the people than the federal government.
If we take a close and fair look at the Constitution, we’ll see that it doesn’t really give the federal government a lot of new powers. Instead, it strengthens the powers the federal government already had under the Articles of Confederation. For example, the power to regulate trade is new, but almost everyone agrees that’s a good thing. Other powers—like making treaties, managing armies, and declaring war—were already part of the old system. The Constitution doesn’t add much to these; it just provides a better way to carry them out.
The biggest change is how taxes will work. Right now, Congress can ask states for money, but the states don’t always cooperate. Under the Constitution, Congress will collect taxes directly from citizens. This will make things run more smoothly and avoid conflict between the federal and state governments over funding.
The federal government will rely on the states for its success. Federal officials are chosen through systems that involve the states, like elections. Even the federal government’s resources—like taxes—come from the people in the states. Far from threatening the states, the federal government depends on them.
In the end, the Constitution doesn’t weaken the states. It strengthens the Union while leaving state governments free to manage local affairs. The federal government and the states aren’t enemies; they’re partners working toward the same goal: the happiness and safety of the people.
FUTURE
So, how did things turn out 250 years later?
It seems rather clear that yes, we did need a central Government with a Constitution over all the States, but did the rest of it play out as intended?
Were the Federal Government’s powers kept “few and defined”?
Or did they gradually grow over time to something that James Madison would not recognize if he were here today?
I have a feeling that even the strongest advocates for a strong central Government amongst our Founding Fathers would be appalled at how much power the Federal Government has wrestled away from the States and from We The People.
Join the conversation!
Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!