The Original Argument: The Federalists' Case for the Constitution, Adapted for the 21st Century Paperback – Bargain Price, June 14, 2011

What makes America truly exceptional? Few understand that America's Constitution was created during a time of relative peace, and through the thoughtful deliberation of men dedicated to the establishment of a Republic that would provide security and liberty for its citizens. This itself is rather unique in history. Having met for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation (the original document that bound the 13 colonies / states together during and after the successful Revolution, these patriots soon agreed that an entire NEW document was needed to establish our democratic republic. After laboring through a long, hot summer in Philadelphia, they produced the Constitution of the United States of America as a complete replacement for the Articles of Confederation. Provisions in the Constitution required ratification by the states. While a majority of states quickly ratified the document, the State of New York suffered political factions strongly opposed to this document, making ratification by New York very much in doubt. Under the pen name of "Publius," John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote a series of short essays addressing the arguments against the adoption of the new Constitution and their rationale in its favor. These essays were published in a number of New York newspapers and other publications, and are commonly known as "The Federalist Papers," or simply, "The Federalist." Where the original documents are written in the convoluted, difficult to understand 18th century English, these (arguably the most important) essays have been "translated" into modern day American English, and are thus easy to read and understand. I believe that a reading of these essays is essential to the understanding of the original intent and purpose of the system of government contained in our Constitution. I also believe that after reading these essays, that average American will question the wisdom of many of the amendments to the Constitution, as well as a number of important Supreme Court decisions. If it were in my power, I would require that one entire semester in high school would be spent on studying the three, founding documents; The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Federalist. This book would be an excellent textbook for this course. I have read other "Translations" of the Federalist, and can attest to the fact that this book closely parallels the other interpretations, is laid out in a more logical sequence, and includes principles and guides to thinking that are extremely useful to the application of this book to today's issues. I highly recommend it.... and, again, if I had the power, would require the study of this book as a prerequisite to voting in any election. The Original Argument: The Federalists' Case for the Constitution, Adapted for the 21st Century

This book and the Federalist is one of the most important books on American history and why certain principles are still relevant. Moreso this book makes the original version understandable in modern language

The Original Argument-you can use it several ways:cover to cover, topic summary,1 page shorts: message/original quote/relevance today.I have eye issues, those floaters make reading a nightmare. Reading used to be my greatest pleasure in life. Now that I am retired, that is basically denied to me. The government took off the market an OTC that cleared up floaters and gave me crystal clear vision. So you really have to want to read something to go thru this. Considering the current state of our nation and the peril it is in, I wonder. Gee, retired people get floaters, have more time to read and really get into the news, and maybe get active. They don't have to work, or raise a family, they have the time to "keep watch" and they see the past present and where the future is heading.Sound the alarm (if anyone is interested) I was relieved to learn that this book hit #1.So I am appreciative of how Glenn Beck arranged this book: The Original Argument.If I want or need to go deeper into a subject or issue, it is right there.The relevance today of how far we have strayed from the Constitution -that by the way some people want us to trash and start over! I don't think so.So if you have time issues, or vision issues, or whatever issues--be of good cheer,Just read those short pages sort of a synopsis of the 7 parts and be informed. You can always read more if you want to:in a few short pages7 parts summarized what it is meant to beand how it is perverted todaythere are 1 page: shorts that you could also just readsome sections have more than 1 of these:the messageoriginal quoterelevance todayand they do not use all of the federalist papersbut just the ones that apply to that subject.Here is your quick reference, and it is easy to read type.1 a new order for the ages -- 3-112 the great compromise --47-593 a republic if you can keep it --143-1524 the delicate balance of power-- 235-2415 minimum government maximum freedom --271-2806 taxation with representation -- 337-3437 truth justice and the American way --371-376Thank you, Glenn for making it available, affordable, and easy to read for even the vision impaired or time issues, or attention span issues.Now there is no excuse for not reading it.

This book does exactly what it claims to do. It updates the language of key Federalist Papers, so they can be read and understood by modern readers, without changing the meaning of the text - a very difficult task. The book also (as promised) shows why the Federalist Papers (the "oringinal argument" for the Constitution of the United States) are relevant to current political disputes.So why only four stars and not five?That is because this work assumes the Federalist Papers to be correct (and the anti Federalist position to be wrong), whereas a case could be made that the growth of government in the United States (the decline of the Republic) is not entirely due to the disregarding or distortion of the Constitution by "Progressives", but that it is also (in part) due to certain real flaws in the Constitution itself which modern collectivists have taken advantage of. Flaws that the Antifederalists pointed to and that the Federalists denied. Of course there were various different "Antifederalist" positions - but the basic case was that the Constitution set up the STRUCTURE (with, for example, the House of Representatives and the President being elected in proportion to the population of the States - thus undermining the principle that the States were equals and that most things should be decided at local and State level, not Federal level) of a strong national government and that to expect this STRUCTURE not to be used (at some time) to go beyond (way beyond) the FUNCTIONS the Founders set out for the Federal givernment.The Federalists wanted a strong national government (out of fears that the United States would either break up and/or be invaded by European powers without one), but they also wanted this strong national government to be limited in its power over ordinary life - and these two aims may not be compatible. At least not compatible without very carefully worded limitations on the power of the Federal government, yet such things as the Tenth Amendment (passed to prevent the very things the Federal government now does) have not just recently been disregarded - they have essentially been dead letters since the 1930s, and were often violated long before that (as Glenn Beck, with his knowledge of the Progressive movement of the early 1900s, knows perfectly well). The ideology of someone like Barack Obama may be far worse even than that of the early 20th century Progressives, but he using much the same tactics and, so far, the Constitution of the United States has not proved much of a defence against these tactics.After all such disputes as whether the "general welfare" is simply part of the purpose ("the common defence and general welfare") of the specific powers that Article One, Section Eight grants to the Congress, or whether there is a catch-all "general welfare spending power" (allowing the Federal government to spend tax money on anything it holds is for the "general welfare") can only be decided (according to the Constitution and the Federalist Papers) in Federal courts - courts where the judges are appointed by the very Federal government that the Constitution is supposed to limit.I am not saying that the Antifederalist case is true, but a strong argument can be made for it - and this work (with its defacto assumption of the correctness of the arguments of Hamilton, Madison and John Jay) basically ignores the various Antifederalist arguments.