federalist paper in a sentence

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Federalist Papers

By: History.com Editors

Updated: June 22, 2023 | Original: November 9, 2009

The Federalist Papers are a collection of essays written in the 1780s in support of the proposed U.S. Constitution and the strong federal government it advocated. In October 1787, the first in a series of 85 essays arguing for ratification of the Constitution appeared in the Independent Journal , under the pseudonym “Publius.” Addressed to “The People of the State of New York,” the essays were actually written by the statesmen Alexander Hamilton , James Madison and John Jay . They would be published serially from 1787-88 in several New York newspapers. The first 77 essays, including Madison’s famous Federalist 10 and Federalist 51 , appeared in book form in 1788. Titled The Federalist , it has been hailed as one of the most important political documents in U.S. history.

Articles of Confederation

As the first written constitution of the newly independent United States, the Articles of Confederation nominally granted Congress the power to conduct foreign policy, maintain armed forces and coin money.

But in practice, this centralized government body had little authority over the individual states, including no power to levy taxes or regulate commerce, which hampered the new nation’s ability to pay its outstanding debts from the Revolutionary War .

In May 1787, 55 delegates gathered in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation and the problems that had arisen from this weakened central government.

A New Constitution

The document that emerged from the Constitutional Convention went far beyond amending the Articles, however. Instead, it established an entirely new system, including a robust central government divided into legislative , executive and judicial branches.

As soon as 39 delegates signed the proposed Constitution in September 1787, the document went to the states for ratification, igniting a furious debate between “Federalists,” who favored ratification of the Constitution as written, and “Antifederalists,” who opposed the Constitution and resisted giving stronger powers to the national government.

The Rise of Publius

In New York, opposition to the Constitution was particularly strong, and ratification was seen as particularly important. Immediately after the document was adopted, Antifederalists began publishing articles in the press criticizing it.

They argued that the document gave Congress excessive powers and that it could lead to the American people losing the hard-won liberties they had fought for and won in the Revolution.

In response to such critiques, the New York lawyer and statesman Alexander Hamilton, who had served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, decided to write a comprehensive series of essays defending the Constitution, and promoting its ratification.

Who Wrote the Federalist Papers?

As a collaborator, Hamilton recruited his fellow New Yorker John Jay, who had helped negotiate the treaty ending the war with Britain and served as secretary of foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation. The two later enlisted the help of James Madison, another delegate to the Constitutional Convention who was in New York at the time serving in the Confederation Congress.

To avoid opening himself and Madison to charges of betraying the Convention’s confidentiality, Hamilton chose the pen name “Publius,” after a general who had helped found the Roman Republic. He wrote the first essay, which appeared in the Independent Journal, on October 27, 1787.

In it, Hamilton argued that the debate facing the nation was not only over ratification of the proposed Constitution, but over the question of “whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”

After writing the next four essays on the failures of the Articles of Confederation in the realm of foreign affairs, Jay had to drop out of the project due to an attack of rheumatism; he would write only one more essay in the series. Madison wrote a total of 29 essays, while Hamilton wrote a staggering 51.

Federalist Papers Summary

In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Jay and Madison argued that the decentralization of power that existed under the Articles of Confederation prevented the new nation from becoming strong enough to compete on the world stage or to quell internal insurrections such as Shays’s Rebellion .

In addition to laying out the many ways in which they believed the Articles of Confederation didn’t work, Hamilton, Jay and Madison used the Federalist essays to explain key provisions of the proposed Constitution, as well as the nature of the republican form of government.

'Federalist 10'

In Federalist 10 , which became the most influential of all the essays, Madison argued against the French political philosopher Montesquieu ’s assertion that true democracy—including Montesquieu’s concept of the separation of powers—was feasible only for small states.

A larger republic, Madison suggested, could more easily balance the competing interests of the different factions or groups (or political parties ) within it. “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests,” he wrote. “[Y]ou make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens[.]”

After emphasizing the central government’s weakness in law enforcement under the Articles of Confederation in Federalist 21-22 , Hamilton dove into a comprehensive defense of the proposed Constitution in the next 14 essays, devoting seven of them to the importance of the government’s power of taxation.

Madison followed with 20 essays devoted to the structure of the new government, including the need for checks and balances between the different powers.

'Federalist 51'

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” Madison wrote memorably in Federalist 51 . “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

After Jay contributed one more essay on the powers of the Senate , Hamilton concluded the Federalist essays with 21 installments exploring the powers held by the three branches of government—legislative, executive and judiciary.

Impact of the Federalist Papers

Despite their outsized influence in the years to come, and their importance today as touchstones for understanding the Constitution and the founding principles of the U.S. government, the essays published as The Federalist in 1788 saw limited circulation outside of New York at the time they were written. They also fell short of convincing many New York voters, who sent far more Antifederalists than Federalists to the state ratification convention.

Still, in July 1788, a slim majority of New York delegates voted in favor of the Constitution, on the condition that amendments would be added securing certain additional rights. Though Hamilton had opposed this (writing in Federalist 84 that such a bill was unnecessary and could even be harmful) Madison himself would draft the Bill of Rights in 1789, while serving as a representative in the nation’s first Congress.

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Ron Chernow, Hamilton (Penguin, 2004). Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (Simon & Schuster, 2010). “If Men Were Angels: Teaching the Constitution with the Federalist Papers.” Constitutional Rights Foundation . Dan T. Coenen, “Fifteen Curious Facts About the Federalist Papers.” University of Georgia School of Law , April 1, 2007. 

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.6: The Federalist Papers and Constitutional Government

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 1999

What is Federalism?

Federalism is the system of government in which sovereignty (the authority and power to govern over a group of people) is constitutionally divided between a central, or national government, and individual regional political units generally referred to as states. It is based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and state governments, creating a federation.

Debating a Federal System: The Federalist Papers

The most forceful defense of the new Constitution was The Federalist Papers , a compilation of 85 anonymous essays published in New York City to convince the people of the state to vote for ratification. These articles were written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. They examined the benefits of the new Constitution and analyzed the political theory and function behind the various articles of the Constitution. Those opposed to the new Constitution became known as the Anti-Federalists. They generally were local rather than cosmopolitan in perspective, oriented to plantations and farms rather than commerce or finance, and wanted strong state governments and a weak national government. The Anti-Federalists believed that the Legislative Branch had too much power, and that they were unchecked. Also, the Executive Branch had too much power, they believed that there was no check on the President. The final belief was that a Bill of Rights should be coupled with the Constitution to prevent a dictator from exploiting citizens. The Federalists argued that it was impossible to list all the rights and those that were not listed could be easily overlooked because they were not in the official Bill of Rights.

What Were The Federalist Papers and Why are They Important?

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison written for the Federalist newspaper.

The convention in Virginia began its debate before nine states had approved the Constitution, but the contest was so close and bitterly fought that it lasted past the point when the technical number needed to ratify had been reached. Nevertheless, Virginia's decision was crucial to the nation. Who can imagine the early history of the United States if Virginia had not joined the union? What if leaders like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison had not been allowed to hold national political office? In the end Virginia approved the Constitution, with recommended amendments, in an especially close vote (89-79). Only one major state remained; the Constitution was close to getting the broad support that it needed to be effective.

Perhaps no state was as deeply divided as New York. The nationalist-urban artisan alliance could strongly carry New York City and the surrounding region while more rural upstate areas were strongly Anti-Federalist. The opponents of the Constitution had a strong majority when the convention began and set a tough challenge for Alexander Hamilton, the leading New York Federalist. Hamilton managed a brilliant campaign that narrowly won the issue (30-27) by combining threat and accommodation. On the one hand, he warned that commercial down state areas might separate from upstate New York if it didn't ratify. On the other hand, he accepted the conciliatory path suggested by Massachusetts; amendments would be acceptable after ratification.

The debate in New York produced perhaps the most famous exploration of American political philosophy, now called The Federalist Papers . Originally they were a series of 85 anonymous letters to newspapers that were co-written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Together, they tried to assure the public of the two key points of the Federalist agenda. First, they explained that a strong government was needed for a variety of reasons, but especially if the United States was to be able to act effectively in foreign affairs. Second, they tried to convince readers that because of the "separation" of powers in the central government, there was little chance of the national government evolving into a tyrannical power. Instead of growing ever stronger, the separate branches would provide a "check and balance" against each other, so that none could rise to complete dominance.

The influence of these newspaper letters in the New York debate is not entirely known, but their status as a classic of American political thought is beyond doubt. Although Hamilton wrote the majority of the letters, James Madison authored the ones that are most celebrated today, especially Federalist No. 10.

Here Madison argued that a larger republic would not lead to greater abuse of power (as had traditionally been thought), but actually could work to make a large national republic a defense against tyranny. Madison explained that the large scope of the national republic would prevent local interests from rising to dominance and therefore the larger scale itself limited the potential for abuse of power. By including a diversity of interests (he identified agriculture, manufacturing, merchants, and creditors, as the key ones), the different groups in a larger republic would cancel each other out and prevent a corrupt interest from controlling all the others.

Madison was one of the first political theorists to offer a profoundly modern vision of self-interest as an aspect of human nature that could be employed to make government better, rather than more corrupt. In this, he represents a key figure in the transition from a traditional Republican vision of America, to a modern Liberal one where self-interest has a necessary role to play in public life.

A Closer Look at the Federalist Papers

Let’s closely examine just three of these important documents.

Federalist #10: In this, the most famous of the Federalist Papers , James Madison begins by stating that one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Constitution is the establishment of a government capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by factions which Madison defines as groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their special economic interests and political opinions (basically political parties and special interests today). Although these factions are at odds with each other, they frequently work against the public interest and infringe upon the rights of others.

Both sides of the Constitutional debate (federalists AND anti-federalists alike) have been concerned with the political instability that these rival factions may cause. Under the Articles of Confederation, the state governments have not succeeded in solving this problem. As a matter of fact, the situation has become such a problem that people have become disillusioned with all politicians and blame the government for their problems (sound familiar?). Consequently, a form of popular government that can deal successfully with this problem has a great deal to recommend it.

Federalist #39: This essay was written to explain and defend the new form of Republican government which the Founding Fathers envisioned to be different than any other “Republic” in Europe. In the mind of Madison and the other founders, no other form of government is suited to the particular genius of the American people; only a Republican form of government can carry forward the principles fought for in the Revolution or demonstrate that self-government is both possible and practical.

Madison sees a Republican form of government as one which derives its powers either directly or indirectly from the people (which distinguishes this new form of republicanism from others that had been used in Europe). This form is administered by people who hold elected public office for a limited period of time or during good behavior. He goes on to say that no government can be called Republican that derives its power from a few people or from a favored and wealthy class (as many governments in Europe did). The Constitution conforms to these Republican principles by ensuring that the people will directly elect the House of Representatives. Additionally, the people indirectly select the senators and the president. Even the judges will reflect the choice of the people since the president appoints them, and the Senate confirms their appointment. The president, senators, and representatives hold office for a specified and limited term. Judges are appointed for life ­but subject to good behavior. The constitutional prohibition against granting titles of nobility and the guarantee to the states that they shall enjoy a republican form of government is further proof that the new government is Republican in nature.

These facts do not satisfy all people. Some people claim that the new Constitution destroyed the federal aspect of the government by taking away too much power from the states. Opponents (anti-federalists) believed that the framers established a national (unitary) form of government where the citizens' are directly acted upon by a central government as citizens of the nation rather than as citizens of the states. But the proposed government (a federal republic) would contain both national and federal characteristics and would allow for a sharing and careful balance of powers between the national government and the states. The principle of federalism (a division of power between the states and the national government) is integrated into the new Constitution and reflected in the suggested method of ratification. The delegates to the ratifying conventions would directly participate (through voting) as citizens of their states, not as citizens of the nation. Madison also points out that this new form of federal republic is also reflected in the structure of the Senate in which the states are equally represented. Since the states would retain certain exclusive and important powers, this is to be considered further proof of the federal nature of the proposed government.

Madison goes on to concede that the new Constitution does exhibit national (central government) features. Madison finishes by reaching the conclusion that the government would be BOTH national and federal. In the operation of its powers, it is a nation; in the extent of its power, it is federal.

Federalist # 51: In this essay, James Madison explains and defends the checks and balances system which would prove to be one of the most important protections and limits included in the Constitution. Each branch of government would be constructed so that its power would have checks over the power of the other two branches. Also, each branch of government is to be subject to the authority of the people who are the legitimate source of authority for the United States government and its new Constitution.

Madison also goes on to discuss the way a republican government can serve as a check on the power of factions, and the tyranny of the majority which would limit the ability of the majority from imposing their will on the minority unjustly (like a tyrant or despot imposing his will over his subjects).

Madison’s conclusion is that all of the Constitution’s checks and balances would serve to preserve liberty by ensuring justice. Madison explained, “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society.” Madison’s political theory is based on Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws on the Founders .

The Impact of the Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers had an immediate impact on the ratification debate in New York and in the other states. The demand for reprints was so great that one New York newspaper publisher printed the essays together in two volumes entitled The Federalist, A Collection of Essays Written in Favor of the New Constitution, By a Citizen of New York . By this time, the identity of "Publius," never a well-kept secret, was pretty well known. The Federalist , also called The Federalist Papers , has served two very different purposes in American history. The 85 essays succeeded in persuading doubtful New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution. Today, The Federalist Papers help us to more clearly understand what the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they drafted that amazing document over 200 years ago.

From these essays, Americans have received a gift from our Founding Fathers. Whenever we, as a nation, need to consider what the original intent and meaning of the Constitution was more than 200 years ago, we simply can go back to these documents and remind ourselves exactly what our founders were thinking and what was intended without any question as to meaning or design.

Study/Discussion Questions

For each of the following terms, write a sentence which uses or describes the term in your own words.

1. Why has federalism been such a major source of conflict throughout the history of the United States?

2. Why are the Federalist Papers important to our Constitutional system?

3. Compare the views of the Federalists with those of the Anti-Federalists.

4. How do Federalist Papers 10, 39 and 51 contribute to our understanding of the Constitution and the issue of federalism?

5. How would you describe the impact of the Federalist Papers on American government today? What do you think our governmental system would be like without them?

Open 365 days a year, Mount Vernon is located just 15 miles south of Washington DC.

From the mansion to lush gardens and grounds, intriguing museum galleries, immersive programs, and the distillery and gristmill. Spend the day with us!

Discover what made Washington "first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen".

The Mount Vernon Ladies Association has been maintaining the Mount Vernon Estate since they acquired it from the Washington family in 1858.

Need primary and secondary sources, videos, or interactives? Explore our Education Pages!

The Washington Library is open to all researchers and scholars, by appointment only.

Federalist Papers

George Washington  was sent draft versions of the first seven essays on November 18, 1787 by James Madison, who revealed to Washington that he was one of the anonymous writers. Washington agreed to secretly transmit the drafts to his in-law David Stuart in Richmond, Virginia so the essays could be more widely published and distributed. Washington explained in a letter to David Humphreys that the ratification of the Constitution would depend heavily "on literary abilities, & the recommendation of it by good pens," and his efforts to proliferate the Federalist Papers reflected this feeling. 1

Washington was skeptical of Constitutional opponents, known as Anti-Federalists, believing that they were either misguided or seeking personal gain. He believed strongly in the goals of the Constitution and saw The Federalist Papers and similar publications as crucial to the process of bolstering support for its ratification. Washington described such publications as "have thrown new lights upon the science of Government, they have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and have explained them in so clear and forcible a manner as cannot fail to make a lasting impression upon those who read the best publications of the subject, and particularly the pieces under the signature of Publius." 2

Although Washington made few direct contributions to the text of the new Constitution and never officially joined the Federalist Party, he profoundly supported the philosophy behind the Constitution and was an ardent supporter of its ratification.

The philosophical influence of the Enlightenment factored significantly in the essays, as the writers sought to establish a balance between centralized political power and individual liberty. Although the writers sought to build support for the Constitution, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay did not see their work as a treatise, per se, but rather as an on-going attempt to make sense of a new form of government.

The Federalist Paper s represented only one facet in an on-going debate about what the newly forming government in America should look like and how it would govern. Although it is uncertain precisely how much The Federalist Papers affected the ratification of the Constitution, they were considered by many at the time—and continue to be considered—one of the greatest works of American political philosophy.

Adam Meehan The University of Arizona

Notes: 1. "George Washington to David Humphreys, 10 October 1787," in George Washington, Writings , ed. John Rhodehamel (New York: Library of America, 1997), 657.

2. "George Washington to John Armstrong, 25 April 1788," in George Washington, Writings , ed. John Rhodehamel (New York: Library of America, 1997), 672.

Bibliography: Chernow, Ron. Washington: A Life . New York: Penguin, 2010.

Epstein, David F. The Political Theory of The Federalist . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.

Furtwangler, Albert. The Authority of Publius: A Reading of the Federalist Papers . Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984.

George Washington, Writings , ed. John Rhodehamel. New York: Library of America, 1997.

Quick Links

9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

MA in American History : Apply now and enroll in graduate courses with top historians this summer!

• AP US History Study Guide
• History U: Courses for High School Students
• History School: Summer Enrichment
• Lesson Plans
• Classroom Resources
• Spotlights on Primary Sources
• Professional Development (Academic Year)
• Professional Development (Summer)
• Book Breaks
• Inside the Vault
• Self-Paced Courses
• Browse All Resources
• Search by Issue
• Search by Essay
• Become a Member (Free)
• Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
• Program Information
• Scholarships and Financial Aid
• Applying and Enrolling
• Eligibility (In-Person)
• EduHam Online
• Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
• Official Website
• Press Coverage
• Veterans Legacy Program
• The Declaration at 250
• Black Lives in the Founding Era
• Celebrating American Historical Holidays
• Browse All Programs
• Donate Items to the Collection
• Search Our Catalog
• Research Guides
• Rights and Reproductions
• See Our Documents on Display
• Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
• Interactive Exhibitions Online
• About the Transcription Program
• Civil War Letters
• Founding Era Newspapers
• College Fellowships in American History
• Scholarly Fellowship Program
• Richard Gilder History Prize
• David McCullough Essay Prize
• Affiliate School Scholarships
• Nominate a Teacher
• Eligibility
• State Winners
• National Winners
• Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
• Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
• George Washington Prize
• Frederick Douglass Book Prize
• Our Mission and History
• Annual Report
• Contact Information
• Student Advisory Council
• Teacher Advisory Council
• Board of Trustees
• Remembering Richard Gilder
• President's Council
• Scholarly Advisory Board
• Internships
• Our Partners
• Press Releases

History Resources

The United States Constitution: Federalists v. Anti-Federalists

By tim bailey, unit objective.

This unit is part of Gilder Lehrman’s series of Common Core State Standards–based teaching resources. These units were developed to enable students to understand, summarize, and analyze original texts of historical significance. Through a step-by-step process, students will acquire the skills to analyze any primary or secondary source material.

Today students will participate as members of a critical thinking group and "read like a detective" in order to analyze the arguments made by the Federalists in favor of ratifying the new US Constitution.

Introduction

Tell the students that after the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, the nation’s new Constitution had to be ratified by the states. The debate over ratification became very heated, especially in New York. This led to a spirited exchange of short essays between the Federalists, who promoted the new Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists, who put forward a variety of objections to the proposed new government. Today we will be closely reading excerpts from four of the Federalist Papers in order to discover what the Federalists’ positions and arguments were. Although the Federalist Papers were written anonymously under the pen name "Publius," historians generally agree that the essays were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

• Federalist Papers #1, #10, #51, and #84 (excerpts) . Source: The full text of all the Federalist Papers are available online at the Library of Congress.
• US Constitution, 1787 . Source: Charters of Freedom , National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters
• Overhead projector or other display

The students will encounter vocabulary that they do not know. There are words in eighteenth-century essays that many adults do not know the meaning of either. It would be overwhelming to give the definition for every unknown word as well as self-defeating when we are trying to get the students to be more independent learners. One benefit of having the students work in groups is that they can reason out the meanings of words in context together. If the students are truly stuck on a word that is critical to the passage, you can open up a class discussion. As a last resort, you can provide the meaning.

First, a caution: do not reveal too much to the students about the arguments presented by either the Federalists or Anti-Federalists. The point is to let the students discover them through careful reading of the text and discussion with their classmates. They will then construct their own arguments based on the text. Depending on the length of the class period or other factors, this lesson may carry over into tomorrow as well.

• Divide the class into groups of three to five students. These will be the "critical thinking groups" for the next several days.
• Discuss the information in the introduction. The students need to at least be familiar with the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention, and the writing of the US Constitution.
• Hand out the four excerpts from Federalist Papers #1, #10, #51, and #84. If possible have a copy up on a document projector so that everyone can see it and you can refer to it easily.
• "Share read" the Federalist Papers with the students. This is done by having the students follow along silently while the teacher begins reading aloud. The teacher models prosody, inflection, and punctuation. The teacher then asks the class to join in with the reading after a few sentences while the teacher continues to read along with the students, still serving as the model for the class. This technique will support struggling readers as well as English language learners (ELL).
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that groups interested in "the rights of the people" more often end up as "tyrants."
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that the "effects" include "a division of society," and the remedy is the formation of "a republic."
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that "such devices [separation of powers] should be necessary to control the abuses of government" and "you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
• Answers will vary, but in the end they should conclude that "the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS . . ."
• Wrap-up: Discuss final conclusions and clarify points of confusion. We want students to be challenged, not overwhelmed.

Today students will participate as members of a critical thinking group and "read like a detective" in order to analyze the arguments made by the Anti-Federalists in opposition to ratifying the new US Constitution.

Review the background information from the last lesson. Today we will be closely reading excerpts from four of the Anti-Federalist Papers in order to discover just what the Anti-Federalists’ positions and arguments were. Although the Anti-Federalists’ essays were written anonymously under various pen names, most famously "Brutus," historians generally agree that among the authors of the Anti-Federalist essays were Robert Yates, Samuel Bryan, George Clinton, and Richard Henry Lee.

• Anti-Federalist Papers #1, #9, #46, and #84 (excerpts) . Source: Morton Borden, ed. The Antifederalist Papers (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1965). Unlike the Federalist Papers, the essays by Anti-Federalists were not conceived of as a unified series. Thus historians have imposed different numbering systems as they compiled various essays; the numbers used here are Morton Borden’s chronology.
• US Constitution, 1787
• Overhead projector or other display method

As in the previous lesson, encourage students to reason out the meanings of words they do not know. If the students are truly stuck on a word that is critical to the passage, you can open up a class discussion. As a last resort, you can provide the meaning.

• Students should sit with their critical thinking groups from the last lesson.
• Discuss the information in the introduction.
• Hand out the four excerpts from Anti-Federalist Papers #1, #9, #46, and #84. If possible have a copy up on a document projector so that everyone can see it and you can refer to it easily.
• "Share read" the Anti-Federalist Papers with the students.
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that the "Aristocracy" and "Lawyers" are out to deceive "The People" in order to "satiate their voracious stomachs with the golden bait."
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that this Anti-Federalist Paper is a satire and that the evidence includes statements such as "totally incapable of thinking or acting" and "have power over little else than yoking hogs."
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that "the Congress are therefore vested with the supreme legislative powers" and "undefined, unbounded and immense power."
• Answers will vary but in the end they should conclude that "but rulers have the same propensities as other men, they are likely to use the power with which they are vested, for private purposes" and "grand security to the rights of the people is not to be found in this Constitution."

The students will deeply understand the major arguments concerning the ratification of the US Constitution. This understanding will be built upon close analysis of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. The students will demonstrate their understanding in both writing and speaking.

Tell the students that now they get to apply their knowledge and understanding of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments. They will need to select a debate moderator from within their group and divide the remaining students into Federalists and Anti-Federalists. As a group they will write questions based on the issues presented in the primary documents. They will also script responses from both sides based solely on what is written in the documents. This is not an actual debate but rather a scripted presentation for the sake of making arguments that the authors of these documents would have made in a debate format. In the next lesson the groups will present their debates for the class.

• Federalist Papers #1, #10, #51, and #84 (excerpts)
• Anti-Federalist Papers #1, #9, #46, and #84 (excerpts)

Students will be sitting with the same critical thinking group as in the previous two lessons. All of the students should have copies of the excerpts from the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers as well as the United States Constitution as reference materials.

• Tell the students that they need to choose one person to be a debate moderator and then divide the rest of the group into Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
• Inform the students that they will be writing a script for a debate based on the issues raised in the primary documents that you have been studying. This script is to be written as a team effort, and everyone in the group will have a copy of the final script.
• The teacher will provide three questions that all groups must address during the debate. However, the students should add another two to four questions that can be answered directly from the primary source material.
• It is important that the students portraying both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists use the actual text from the documents to make their arguments.
• What is your position on a bill of rights being added to the Constitution?
• How would you address concerns about the "powers of government" under this new Constitution?
• Can you explain why this Constitution is or is not in the best interests of our nation as a whole?
• Students can then construct their own questions to be directed to either side with the opportunity for rebuttal from the other side.
• Remind the students again that everyone needs to work on the script and the responses must be taken directly from the text of the documents introduced in class.
• Wrap-up: If students have time, let them rehearse their presentations for the next lesson.

The students will demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments. This is not an actual debate but a scripted presentation making arguments that the authors of these documents would have made in a debate format.

Students will be sitting with the same critical thinking groups as in the previous three lessons. All of the students should have copies of the excerpts from the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers as well as the United States Constitution as reference materials.

• Tell the students that they will be presenting the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists that they scripted in the last lesson.
• The Moderator should begin the debate by introducing both sides and setting out the protocol for the "debate." (Actually watching a clip of a debate might be helpful as well.)
• In evaluating the student work you should measure the following: Did the students effectively address all three mandatory questions using text-based evidence? Did the additional questions developed by the students address pertinent issues? Were all of the students in a group involved in the process?
• Wrap-up: As time allows, have students debrief the last four lessons and what they learned.
• OPTIONAL: If you believe that you need to evaluate more individualized understanding of the issues presented over the past four lessons you can have students write a short essay addressing the three mandatory questions that they were given as a group.

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, constitution 101 resources, 9.3 primary source: federalist no. 78.

This activity is part of Module 9: The Judicial System and Current Cases from the  Constitution 101 Curriculum . 

View the case on the National Constitution Center’s website here .

On May 28, 1788, Alexander Hamilton published Federalist No. 78—titled “The Judicial Department.” In this famous Federalist Paper essay, Hamilton offered, perhaps, the most powerful defense of judicial review in the American constitutional canon. On the one hand, Hamilton defined the judicial branch as the “weakest” and “least dangerous” branch of the new national government. On the other hand, he also emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary and the power of judicial review. With judicial independence, the Constitution put barriers in place—like life tenure and salary protections—to ensure that the federal courts were independent from the control of the elected branches. And with judicial review, federal judges had the power to review the constitutionality of the laws and actions of the government—ensuring that they met the requirements of the new Constitution. Other than Marbury v. Madison (1803), Hamilton’s essay remains the most famous defense of judicial review in American history, and it even served as the basis for many of Chief Justice John Marshall’s arguments in Marbury itself.

Life tenure promotes judicial independence and is an essential feature of the federal judiciary. According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State. . . . The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.

The judicial branch is the least dangerous of the three branches. Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. . . .

The judiciary must exercise judicial review to strike down unconstitutional laws, actions, and practices by the government; when it does so, it enforces our nation’s highest law set out by the American people in the Constitution. There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

On its own, Congress can’t be trusted to decide on the constitutionality of its own laws; we need a check like judicial review as an additional layer of constitutional protection; the judiciary helps to ensure that Congress acts within the limits set out by the people in the Constitution. If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

This doesn’t make the judiciary supreme; instead, it simply acknowledges that the Constitution’s commands, as set out by the people, are superior to any branch of government. Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. . . .

Life tenure gives federal judges the independence necessary to check the legislative branch. If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

Judicial independence is essential to protecting the rights of the people from abuses by the government. This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. . . . Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form [of government], it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.

*Bold sentences give the big idea of the excerpt and are not a part of the primary source. 

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

Founders Online --> [ Back to normal view ]

The federalist number 40, [18 january] 1788, the federalist number 40.

[18 January 1788]

The second point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorised to frame and propose this mixed constitution.

The powers of the convention ought in strictness to be determined by an inspection of the commissions given to the members by their respective constituents. As all of these however, had reference, either to the recommendation from the meeting at Annapolis in September, 1786, or to that from congress in February, 1787, it will be sufficient to recur to these particular acts.

The act from Annapolis recommends the “appointment of commissioners to take into consideration the situation of the United States, to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the union ; and to report such an act for that purpose, to the United States in congress assembled, as, when agreed to by them, and afterwards confirmed by the legislature of every state, will effectually provide for the same.”

The recommendatory act of congress is in the words following: “Whereas there is provision in the articles of confederation and perpetual union, for making alterations therein, by the assent of a congress of the United States, and of the legislatures of the several states: And whereas experience hath evinced, that there are defects in the present confederation, as a mean to remedy which several of the states, and particularly the state of New-York , by express instructions to their delegates in congress, have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution; and such convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these states, a firm national government .”

“Resolved, That in the opinion of congress, it is expedient, that on the 2d Monday in May next, a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several states, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of confederation , and reporting to congress and the several legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein , as shall, when agreed to in congress, and confirmed by the states, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union .”

From these two acts it appears, 1st. that the object of the convention was to establish in these states, a firm national government ; 2d. that this government was to be such as would be adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union ; 3d. that these purposes were to be effected by alterations and provisions in the articles of confederation , as it is expressed in the act of congress, or by such further provisions as should appear necessary , as it stands in the recommendatory act from Annapolis; 4th. that the alterations and provisions were to be reported to congress, and to the states, in order to be agreed to by the former, and confirmed by the latter.

From a comparison and fair construction of these several modes of expression, is to be deduced the authority under which the convention acted. They were to frame a national government , adequate to the exigencies of government and of the union , and to reduce the articles of confederation into such form as to accomplish these purposes.

There are two rules of construction dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

Suppose then that the expressions defining the authority of the convention, were irreconcileably at variance with each other; that a national and adequate government could not possibly, in the judgment of the convention, be effected by alterations and provisions in the articles of confederation , which part of the definition ought to have been embraced, and which rejected? Which was the more important, which the less important part? Which the end, which the means? Let the most scrupulous expositors of delegated powers; let the most inveterate objectors against those exercised by the convention, answer these questions. Let them declare, whether it was of most importance to the happiness of the people of America, that the articles of confederation should be disregarded, and an adequate government be provided, and the union preserved; or that an adequate government should be omitted, and the articles of confederation preserved. Let them declare, whether the preservation of these articles was the end for securing which a reform of the government was to be introduced as the means; or whether the establishment of a government, adequate to the national happiness, was the end at which these articles themselves originally aimed, and to which they ought, as insufficient means, to have been sacrificed.

But is it necessary to suppose that these expressions are absolutely irreconcileable to each other; that no alterations or provisions in the articles of the confederation , could possibly mould them into a national and adequate government; into such a government as has been proposed by the convention?

No stress it is presumed will in this case be laid on the title , a change of that could never be deemed an exercise of ungranted power. Alterations in the body of the instrument, are expressly authorised. New provisions therein are also expressly authorised. Here then is a power to change the title; to insert new articles; to alter old ones. Must it of necessity be admitted that this power is infringed, so long as a part of the old articles remain? Those who maintain the affirmative, ought at least to mark the boundary between authorised and usurped innovations, between that degree of change which lies within the compass of alterations and further provisions ; and that which amounts to a transmutation of the government. Will it be said that the alterations ought not to have touched the substance of the confederation? The states would never have appointed a convention with so much solemnity, nor described its objects with so much latitude, if some substantial reform had not been in contemplation. Will it be said that the fundamental principles of the confederation were not within the purview of the convention, and ought not to have been varied? I ask what are these principles? Do they require that in the establishment of the constitution, the states should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the constitution proposed. Do they require that the members of the government should derive their appointment from the legislatures, not from the people of the states? One branch of the new government is to be appointed by these legislatures; and under the confederation the delegates to congress may all be appointed immediately by the people, and in two states * are actually so appointed. Do they require that the powers of the government should act on the states, and not immediately on individuals? In some instances, as has been shewn, the powers of the new government will act on the states in their collective characters. In some instances also those of the existing government act immediately on individuals: In cases of capture, of piracy, of the post-office, of coins, weights and measures, of trade with the Indians, of claims under grants of land by different states, and above all, in the case of trials by courts-martial in the army and navy, by which death may be inflicted without the intervention of a jury, or even of a civil magistrate; in all these cases the powers of the confederation operate immediately on the persons and interests of individual citizens. Do these fundamental principles require particularly that no tax should be levied without the intermediate agency of the states? The confederation itself authorises a direct tax to a certain extent on the post-office. The power of coinage has been so construed by congress, as to levy a tribute immediately from that source also. But pretermitting these instances, was it not an acknowledged object of the convention, and the universal expectation of the people, that the regulation of trade should be submitted to the general government in such a form as would render it an immediate source of general revenue? Had not congress repeatedly recommended this measure as not inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the confederation? Had not every state but one, had not New-York herself, so far complied with the plan of congress, as to recognize the principle of the innovation? Do these principles in fine require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that beyond this limit, the states should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government as in the old, the general powers are limited, and that the states, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction.

The truth is, that the great principles of the constitution proposed by the convention, may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of confederation. The misfortune under the latter system has been, that these principles are so feeble and confined as to justify all the charges of inefficiency which have been urged against it; and to require a degree of enlargement which gives to the new system, the aspect of an entire transformation of the old.

In one particular it is admitted that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission. Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation of all the states , they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed and may be carried into effect by nine states only . It is worthy of remark, that this objection, though the most plausible, has been the least urged in the publications which have swarmed against the convention. The forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve states, to the perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth; from the example of inflexible opposition given by a majority of one sixtieth of the people of America, to a measure approved and called for by the voice of twelve states comprising fifty-nine sixtieths of the people; an example still fresh in the memory and indignation of every citizen who has felt for the wounded honor and prosperity of his country. As this objection therefore, has been in a manner waved by those who have criticised the powers of the convention, I dismiss it without further observation.

The third point to be enquired into is, how far considerations of duty arising out of the case itself, could have supplied any defect of regular authority.

In the preceding enquiries, the powers of the convention have been analyzed and tried with the same rigour, and by the same rules, as if they had been real and final powers, for the establishment of a constitution for the United States. We have seen, in what manner they have borne the trial, even on that supposition. It is time now to recollect, that the powers were merely advisory and recommendatory; that they were so meant by the states, and so understood by the convention; and that the latter have accordingly planned and proposed a constitution, which is to be of no more consequence than the paper on which it is written, unless it be stamped with the approbation of those to whom it is addressed. This reflection places the subject in a point of view altogether different, and will enable us to judge with propriety of the course taken by the convention.

Let us view the ground on which the convention stood. It may be collected from their proceedings, that they were deeply and unanimously impressed with the crisis which had led their country almost with one voice to make so singular and solemn an experiment, for correcting the errors of a system by which this crisis had been produced; that they were no less deeply and unanimously convinced, that such a reform as they have proposed, was absolutely necessary to effect the purposes of their appointment. It could not be unknown to them, that the hopes and expectations of the great body of citizens, throughout this great empire, were turned with the keenest anxiety, to the event of their deliberations. They had every reason to believe that the contrary sentiments agitated the minds and bosoms of every external and internal foe to the liberty and prosperity of the United States. They had seen in the origin and progress of the experiment, the alacrity with which the proposition , made by a single state (Virginia) towards a partial amendment of the confederation, had been attended to and promoted. They had seen the liberty assumed by a very few deputies, from a very few states, convened at Annapolis, of recommending a great and critical object, wholly foreign to their commission, not only justified by the public opinion, but actually carried into effect, by twelve out of the Thirteen States. They had seen in a variety of instances, assumptions by congress not only of recommendatory, but of operative powers, warranted in the public estimation, by occasions and objects infinitely less urgent than those by which their conduct was to be governed. They must have reflected, that in all great changes of established governments, forms ought to give way to substance; that a rigid adherence in such cases to the former, would render nominal and nugatory, the transcendent and precious right of the people to “abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness” * ; since it is impossible for the people spontaneously and universally, to move in concert towards their object; and it is therefore essential, that such changes be instituted by some informal and unauthorised propositions , made by some patriotic and respectable citizen or number of citizens. They must have recollected that it was by this irregular and assumed privilege of proposing to the people plans for their safety and happiness, that the states were first united against the danger with which they were threatened by their antient government; that committees and congresses were formed for concentrating their efforts, and defending their rights; and that conventions were elected in the several states , for establishing the constitutions under which they are now governed; nor could it have been forgotten that no little ill-timed scruples, no zeal for adhering to ordinary forms were any where seen, except in those who wished to indulge under these masks, their secret enmity to the substance contended for. They must have borne in mind, that as the plan to be framed and proposed, was to be submitted to the people themselves , the disapprobation of this supreme authority would destroy it for ever; its approbation blot out all antecedent errors and irregularities. It might even have occurred to them, that where a disposition to cavil prevailed, their neglect to execute the degree of power vested in them, and still more their recommendation of any measure whatever not warranted by their commission, would not less excite animadversion, than a recommendation at once of a measure fully commensurate to the national exigencies.

Had the convention under all these impressions, and in the midst of all these considerations, instead of exercising a manly confidence in their country, by whose confidence they had been so peculiarly distinguished, and of pointing out a system capable in their judgment of securing its happiness, taken the cold and sullen resolution of disappointing its ardent hopes of sacrificing substance to forms, of committing the dearest interests of their country to the uncertainties of delay, and the hazard of events; let me ask the man, who can raise his mind to one elevated conception; who can awaken in his bosom, one patriotic emotion, what judgment ought to have been pronounced by the impartial world, by the friends of mankind, by every virtuous citizen, on the conduct and character of this assembly, or if there be a man whose propensity to condemn, is susceptible of no controul, let me then ask what sentence he has in reserve for the twelve states who usurped the power of sending deputies to the convention, a body utterly unknown to their constitutions; for congress, who recommended the appointment of this body, equally unknown to the confederation; and for the state of New-York in particular, who first urged, and then complied with this unauthorised interposition.

But that the objectors may be disarmed of every pretext, it shall be granted for a moment, that the convention were neither authorised by their commission, nor justified by circumstances, in proposing a constitution for their country: Does it follow that the constitution ought for that reason alone to be rejected? If according to the noble precept, it be lawful to accept good advice even from an enemy, shall we set the ignoble example of refusing such advice even when it is offered by our friends? The prudent enquiry in all cases, ought surely to be not so much from whom the advice comes, as whether the advice be good .

The sum of what has been here advanced and proved, is that the charge against the convention of exceeding their powers, except in one instance little urged by the objectors, has no foundation to support it; that if they had exceeded their powers, they were not only warranted but required, as the confidential servants of their country, by the circumstances in which they were placed, to exercise the liberty which they assumed, and that finally, if they had violated both their powers, and their obligations in proposing a constitution, this ought nevertheless to be embraced, if it be calculated to accomplish the views and happiness of the people of America. How far this character is due to the constitution, is the subject under investigation.

McLean description begins The Federalist, A Collection of Essays, written in favour of the New Constitution, By a Citizen of New-York. Printed by J. and A. McLean (New York, 1788). description ends , II, 28–37.

Authorial notes

[The following note(s) appeared in the margins or otherwise outside the text flow in the original source, and have been moved here for purposes of the digital edition.]

*   Connecticut and Rhode-Island.

*   Declaration of Independence.

Index Entries

You are looking at.

• Daily Crossword
• Word Puzzle
• Word Finder
• Word of the Day
• Synonym of the Day
• Word of the Year
• Language stories
• All featured
• Gender and sexuality
• All pop culture
• Grammar Coach ™
• Writing hub
• Grammar essentials
• Commonly confused
• All writing tips
• Pop culture
• Writing tips

an advocate of federalism .

( initial capital letter ) U.S. History . a member or supporter of the Federalist party.

Also fed·er·al·is·tic [fed-er- uh - lis -tik] /ˌfɛd ər əˈlɪs tɪk/ . of federalism or the Federalists.

Origin of federalist

Other words from federalist.

• hy·per·fed·er·al·ist, noun

Words Nearby federalist

• Federal Government
• Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
• Federal Housing Administration
• Federalist party
• Federal Land Bank
• federal law
• Federal National Mortgage Association

Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2024

How to use federalist in a sentence

Though Abiy’s government will weather the storm, there is more controversy to come as he moves forward with plans to amend Ethiopia’s constitution to change the country’s ethno- federalist structure.

America’s federalist structure also makes collective action, handed down from the federal level, extremely difficult.

And as one of the initial organizers of the federalist Society, he is a skilled political tactician.

In the federalist Papers, James Madison wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

As Madison put it in federalist 52, the House was to be “dependent on the People alone.”

Not the rich,” as he wrote in federalist 57, “more than the poor.

The first sentence of The federalist Society states that this is a book “about the power of ideas.”

But Mr. Parnell was thinking only of Ireland, and he was not a federalist .

But the propertied classes in the interior belonged chiefly to the federalist party.

To-day Jeffersons directions are observed, and the federalist remains the text-book.

He says the Republican and the federalist parties were divided by a bottomless gulf in their theories of constitutional powers.

The federalist clergy joined in denouncing Jefferson on the ground that he was an atheist.

British Dictionary definitions for Federalist

/ ( ˈfɛdərəlɪst ) US history /

a supporter or member of the Federalist party

characteristic of the Federalists

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012

Federalist in a Sentence  🔊

Definition of Federalist

one who favors a system of governance in which the main power lies with the national government

Examples of Federalist in a sentence

The politician is a federalist because he believes the states should have less power than the central government.  🔊

If the president is indeed a federalist, then he will try to pass legislation limiting states’ rights.  🔊

The Federalist party came into prominence in the late 1700’s in support of the U.S. Constitution and a strong nationwide administration.  🔊

Under the leadership of a federalist, the national government will act as the main authority in the country.  🔊

It was obvious the political candidate was not a federalist when he outlined his proposal giving states more authority.  🔊

Other words in the People category:

Most Searched Words (with Video)

Voracious: In a Sentence

Verbose: In a Sentence

Vainglorious: In a Sentence

Pseudonym: In a Sentence

Propinquity: In a Sentence

Orotund: In a Sentence

Magnanimous: In a Sentence

Inquisitive: In a Sentence

Epoch: In a Sentence

Aberrant: In a Sentence

Apprehensive: In a Sentence

Obdurate: In a Sentence

Heresy: In a Sentence

Gambit: In a Sentence

Pneumonia: In a Sentence

Otiose: In a Sentence

Watch CBS News

How did April Fools' Day start and what are some famous pranks?

By Aliza Chasan

April 1, 2024 / 6:00 AM EDT / CBS News

Historians aren't pulling your leg when they say no one is quite sure about the origins of April Fools' Day. 

April 1, the annual day of shenanigans, pranks, tricks and hoaxes, falls on Monday this year. While historians are unsure of the exact source of the tradition, they do know the custom goes back centuries, at least back to Renaissance Europe and possibly back to Roman times. Here's a look at what the experts say.

Theories, both real and false, tie April Fools' Day to Roman times 

Some believe April Fools' Day dates back to Hilaria festivals celebrated during classical Roman times. The festival was held on March 25 which, in Roman terms, was called the "eighth of the Calends of April," according to the Library of Congress. 

One theory tying the source of April Fools' Day to Roman times is a hoax. In 1983, an Associated Press reporter reached out to Joseph Boskin, a historian at Boston University, to discuss the origins of April Fools' Day. Boskin spun a tall tale to the reporter, assuming it would be fact-checked and revealed as fake. 

It wasn't. 

According to the story Boskin made up, a group of jesters convinced Emperor Constantine to make one of them king for a day. The appointed jester, named Kugel, declared it would be a day of levity. 

"I got an immediate phone call from an editor there, who was furious, saying that I had ruined the career of a young reporter," Boskin said in a Boston University post. "He said I told a lie. 'A lie?' I asked, 'I was telling an April Fools' Day story.'"

Middle Ages 

Some historians believe France is responsible for the humorous tradition, tying it to a calendar change in 1582, according to the History Channel . That year, France implemented the Gregorian calendar, shifting the start of the New Year from the spring equinox, which usually falls around April 1, to January 1. 

After the change, people who wrongly celebrated the new year in late March and early April were called "April fools."

The first clear reference to April Fools' Day is a 1561 Flemish poem by Eduard De Dene, which tells the story of a servant being sent on "fool's errands" because it's April 1, according to the Library of Congress. 

What are some famous April Fools' Day pranks?

In 1957, the BBC ran a broadcast on the Italian spaghetti harvest  that pretended the pasta was being harvested from trees. 

The BBC also ran an April Fools' report on flying penguins in 2008.

In Los Angeles, airline passengers were greeted with a banner saying "Welcome to Chicago" after landing on April 1, 1992, CBS Sunday Morning previously reported.

Taco Bell in 1996 advertised that it had bought the Liberty Bell and renamed it the "Taco Liberty Bell," according to the company.

As part of a 1997 April Fools' Day joke, Alex Trebek, host of "Jeopardy," swapped places with "Wheel of Fortune" host Pat Sajak, according to jeopardy.com .

On April 1, 2015, streaming giant Netflix shared faux public service announcements to remind viewers to "Binge Responsibly."

• April Fools' Day

Aliza Chasan is a digital producer at 60 Minutes and CBSNews.com. She has previously written for outlets including PIX11 News, The New York Daily News, Inside Edition and DNAinfo. Aliza covers trending news, often focusing on crime and politics.

More from CBS News

13 workers in collapsed gold mine declared dead in Russia

Iran vows revenge for suspected Israeli airstrike on its consulate in Damascus

Israelis stage largest anti-government protest since war began

Man apparently fell to death while chasing dog near waterfall

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

DealBook Newsletter

Life Magazine Will Come Back to, Well, Life

The investor Josh Kushner and his wife, Karlie Kloss, have struck a deal with Barry Diller’s media company to revive it as a regular print title.

By Andrew Ross Sorkin ,  Ravi Mattu ,  Bernhard Warner ,  Sarah Kessler ,  Michael J. de la Merced ,  Lauren Hirsch and Ephrat Livni

Kushner and Kloss take over Life magazine

Life, the iconic photography-focused chronicler of the 20th century, has taken on many forms, including a weekly magazine, a website and the occasional special issue.

Now, it is set to resume regular print publication, thanks to a deal between Barry Diller’s IAC and Josh Kushner, the venture capitalist whose Thrive Capital is one of the biggest investors in OpenAI, and his wife, the entrepreneur and model Karlie Kloss.

Kushner and Kloss are buying the publication rights to Life from Dotdash Meredith, the print and digital publisher. The deal is being done through Bedford Media, the media start-up that Kloss leads as C.E.O. (The price wasn’t disclosed.)

Life was once a central part of American culture, featuring the work of renowned photographers like Robert Capa and writing by top authors. (Ernest Hemingway’s “The Old Man and the Sea” first appeared in its pages.)

But its popularity plunged after the 1970s, with the magazine largely being reduced to light reading and celebrity news. In 2008, it became an online archive with occasional newsstand editions.

The backstory: Kushner approached Diller about resurrecting Life about eight months ago, DealBook hears. His pitch was that the magazine could be resurrected in print and online — as well as in newer iterations like events and collaborations with brands and major studios.

“Life’s legacy lies in its ability to blend culture, current events and everyday life — highlighting the triumphs, challenges and unique perspectives that define us,” Kushner said in a statement.

Dotdash Meredith will remain involved: It owns the rights to Life’s vast photo and content archive, and will continue to publish special single-topic print editions.

It’s the latest high-profile effort to resurrect a legacy publication during a tough time for the media industry. Old-school publishers like Condé Nast and newer ones like Vox and Vice have struggled amid a downturn in advertising.

But Kushner, who will serve as Life’s publisher, and Kloss are betting that they have a more focused approach that will succeed. “We see Life as an uplifting and unifying voice in a chaotic media landscape,” Kloss said.

The two have already purchased other famous titles. When Bedford was formed last year, it bought the style magazine i-D from Vice. And in 2020, Kloss organized an investor consortium to buy the high-end fashion magazine W .

What’s next: Bedford will begin hiring senior editorial staff for Life, which is tentatively set to resume regular publishing early next year.

HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING

Disney ends its legal fight with Ron DeSantis over its Florida special tax district. The entertainment giant and the state’s governor agreed to cooperate on new growth plans for the 25,000-acre area that encompasses Walt Disney World. It was a surprising end to a bitter fight that saw DeSantis and his allies take over the district and Disney fight back with quiet efforts to lock in its own development plans.

Amazon invests $2.75 billion more into Anthropic. The funding brings the tech giant’s total stake in Anthropic, a buzzy artificial intelligence start-up, to $4 billion . It’s the latest sign of tech giants’ eagerness to pour money into promising A.I. technology. Meanwhile, Salesforce reportedly paid more than $20 million to license Albert Einstein’s image to promote its A.I. efforts.

Deal making roars back in the first quarter. About $690.2 billion worth of mergers were announced in the first three months, up 30 percent from the same time last year, according to LSEG. But that growth was driven largely by mega transactions like Capital One’s $35 billion bid for Discover Financial Services: The number of announced deals was down 31 percent year on year.

How much time will Bankman-Fried serve?

Sam Bankman-Fried is set to be sentenced today, with prosecutors requesting that the FTX founder spend decades in prison and defense lawyers arguing for just a few years.

The 32-year-old’s fate will hinge on how Judge Lewis Kaplan of the Southern District of New York weighs how much damage he caused to investors and customers, and how many of them will get their money back.

Prosecutors want Bankman-Fried to serve up to 50 years. The onetime poster child of the crypto industry was found guilty in November of seven counts of fraud and conspiracy after being charged with stealing billions of dollars to fund a lavish lifestyle and his own investments.

In a court filing this month, prosecutors called the fraud “historic,” pointing to the magnitude of losses and the tens of thousands of potential victims, including unsophisticated retail investors.

Bankman-Fried’s lawyers are calling for leniency. They have asked for a sentence of no more than six and a half years and accused the government of pursuing a “medieval” punishment of an “exceptionally brilliant” young man with much to offer society.

They have also pointed to claims by FTX’s lawyers that customers would eventually be repaid. The net harm to customers, lenders and investors, they said, is “zero.”

FTX’s current leader blasted those claims. John Ray told Judge Kaplan this month that recovering the money wasn’t guaranteed and would take work by his team. It was “categorically, callously, and demonstrably false” to say that no harm was caused, he added.

Victim restitution won’t guarantee a lighter sentence . “It’s a crime to defraud people,” Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, told DealBook. “And the sheer scale of the fraud here was large.” He expects a sentence of 20 to 30 years.

Mark Kornfeld of the law firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney agreed that Bankman-Fried’s role in victims regaining their money may not matter much. “He’s not the one making them whole,” he told The Financial Times .

A cheat sheet for tomorrow’s inflation report

As the S&P 500 heads into the last trading day of the quarter, the index is closing in on a fifth straight monthly gain. Driving that are hopes that the Fed will start cutting interest rates as early as June.

But new inflation data could still derail that momentum. The Commerce Department is scheduled to release the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, which is closely watched in Washington, tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. Eastern.

Economists expect another hot number . The question is, how hot ? Especially strong data could prod the Fed to delay lowering borrowing costs, and affect the number of cuts this year.

Here’s what to watch for:

Headline P.C.E. for February is expected to show a 2.5 percent year-on-year gain, a slight increase from the January report.

Core P.C.E., which excludes volatile food and fuel prices, is forecast to come in at 2.8 percent on an annualized basis, roughly in line with the previous month.

Analysts will watch for signs that services inflation — spending on things like airfare, health care and rent — has begun to ease. Consumer spending in these areas has remained high in recent months.

Fed hawks are weighing in ahead of the report. Christopher Waller , a Fed governor, said in a speech yesterday that the central bank should hold off on cutting rates until he sees “at least a couple months of better inflation data.” (The title of his talk: “There’s Still No Rush.”)

Investors sold off Treasury notes after Waller’s comments. But the futures market this morning is still penciling in three rate cuts this year, more or less in line with the Fed’s most recent forecast .

“If the leadership doesn’t execute a beautiful deleveraging, China will have a Japanese-style lost decade with Marxist characteristics.”

— Ray Dalio , the founder of Bridgewater Associates. In a lengthy post on LinkedIn, the hedge fund billionaire agreed with President Xi Jinping of China about an imminent century of extraordinary change and offered suggestions to help Beijing deal with its economic problems.

The A.I. lobby wants to talk about China

As policymakers try to figure out how to regulate the fast-growing artificial intelligence industry, Silicon Valley has ramped up its lobbying efforts to shape the debate.

Its latest tactic? Tapping into growing worries about China.

The Biden administration is doubling down on China’s tech threat. That’s evident by recent moves, such as signaling its support for legislation that could see TikTok banned in the U.S.

China is producing more top researchers , though the U.S. has a big lead on investments and breakthroughs.

Silicon Valley is trying to capitalize on the mood. On May 1, tech leaders — including Palantir’s Alex Karp, Sequoia Capital’s Roelof Botha and Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures — are expected to attend a conference in Washington with dozens of lawmakers, like Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana.

Jacob Helberg, an adviser to Palantir and a member of a congressional commission on China’s threats to national security, is organizing the event.

For tech companies, Washington’s focus on China could be good for business. “The other side of slowing down China is minimal friction and regulation for U.S. companies,” Amba Kak, a former senior adviser on A.I. to the F.T.C., told The Times.

The event comes as the industry is ramping up its lobbying efforts. More than 350 organizations reported lobbying the federal government on A.I. issues during the first nine months of 2023, spending a total of $569 million on the effort, according to OpenSecrets .

But a Facebook co-founder is reportedly making a different case. Dustin Moskovitz , a major Democratic donor, met with President Biden last month to share his own arguments about A.I. safety, according to Puck.

Moskovitz and others have warned that “mitigating the risk of extinction from A.I. should be a global priority.” His nonprofit group, Open Philanthropy, has advocated regulations like software export controls and licensing requirements for certain A.I. models.

THE SPEED READ

The British hedge fund mogul Chris Hohn led Institutional Investor’s latest Rich List with a $2.9 billion haul last year, followed by Millennium’s Izzy Englander and Citadel’s Ken Griffin. (II)

Liberty Media, the owner of Formula One, is reportedly in talks to buy the parent company of MotoGP , the motorcycle racing competition, for more than 4 billion euros (about $4.3 billion). (FT)

Josh Harris and David Blitzer, whose company owns the Philadelphia 76ers, have formed Unrivaled Sports to invest in youth-focused sports, with backing from the Chernin Group. (Unrivaled Sports)

A member of Qatar’s royal family invested roughly $50 million in Newsmax during the Trump administration. Staff at the conservative news publication were reportedly told to soften coverage of the country before and after the deal. (WaPo)

Joe Lieberman , the longtime Democratic senator and vice-presidential nominee who most recently helped lead the independent political group No Labels, died yesterday. He was 82. (NYT)

Best of the rest

The credit rating agency S&P downgraded Paramount Global’s debt to junk, citing declines in its business. (Bloomberg)

A new study by Boston Consulting Group and the nonprofit group Moms First found that child care benefits for employees essentially pay for themselves. (Axios)

“Has the Luxury E-Commerce Bubble Burst ?” (NYT)

Daniel Kahneman , whose pioneering work on behavioral economics earned him a Nobel, died yesterday. He was 90. (NYT)

We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to [email protected] .

Andrew Ross Sorkin is a columnist and the founder and editor at large of DealBook. He is a co-anchor of CNBC’s "Squawk Box" and the author of “Too Big to Fail.” He is also a co-creator of the Showtime drama series "Billions." More about Andrew Ross Sorkin

Ravi Mattu is the managing editor of DealBook, based in London. He joined The New York Times in 2022 from the Financial Times, where he held a number of senior roles in Hong Kong and London. More about Ravi Mattu

Bernhard Warner is a senior editor for DealBook, a newsletter from The Times, covering business trends, the economy and the markets. More about Bernhard Warner

Sarah Kessler is an editor for the DealBook newsletter and writes features on business and how workplaces are changing. More about Sarah Kessler

Michael de la Merced joined The Times as a reporter in 2006, covering Wall Street and finance. Among his main coverage areas are mergers and acquisitions, bankruptcies and the private equity industry. More about Michael J. de la Merced

Lauren Hirsch joined The Times from CNBC in 2020, covering deals and the biggest stories on Wall Street. More about Lauren Hirsch

Ephrat Livni reports from Washington on the intersection of business and policy for DealBook. Previously, she was a senior reporter at Quartz, covering law and politics, and has practiced law in the public and private sectors.   More about Ephrat Livni

Recommended

Outraged nyc biz owners are fed up with carl heastie over refusal to crack down on violent shoplifters: ‘it’s open season’.

• View Author Archive
• Email the Author
• Get author RSS feed

Contact The Author

Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.

Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.

Furious Big Apple business owners are tearing state Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie to shreds over his refusal to beef up penalties for violent shoplifters, with some raging , “It’s open season on retail workers.”

Heastie (D-Bronx) sparked widespread outrage last week when he shut down Gov. Kathy Hochul’s plan to toughen sentences for the criminals, bizarrely declaring, “I just don’t believe raising penalties is ever a deterrent on crime.”

“How do you deter crime except by penalty?” said an enraged Nelson Eusebio, who heads the National Supermarket Association and Coalition to Save our Supermarkets, to The Post on Monday.

“Our workers are on the front line dealing with shoplifters and criminals,” Eusebio said. “It’s open season on retail workers in the city.”

An employee at a CVS on the Upper East Side — where a hammer-wielding shoplifter smashed a 37-year-old worker’s hand and several of the store’s windows in November in a fit when his crime was foiled — told The Post on Monday, “What can you do?

“Nobody wants to deal with it,” the employee said of the criminal violence, which has led the store “to lock up even the low-price products because of the quantity” of what’s taken during rampages.

“They’re not taking one or two [items], they’re taking the whole shelf,” the worker said.

The Lexington Avenue store is now closing in May, although a rep for the chain did not mention the violent theft or other shoplifting as the reason, according to the local Patch outlet.

But the employee told The Post that workers their dark joke, “Now the items get locked up, and the people don’t.”

Eusebio, who reps 600 supermarkets in Gotham and beyond, estimated that assaults on his members alone had surged 20% this year based on the complaints he has received.

Citywide retail thefts are up overall more than 6.5% — or to 14,910 — so far this year, compared to the same time frame in 2023, when 13,987 incidents were recorded, the latest NYPD crime stats show.

Hochul, in her budget, called for a crackdown on the explosion of retail thefts, which she estimated is costing Empire State retailers $4.4 billion a year. She also said she wants to jack up the penalties for those perps who go after store employees.

But Heastie, whose position as head of the assembly is especially powerful, refused to back the plan.

“I don’t want to make it sound like we’re not concerned about stemming what’s happened to retail workers. We care very deeply about that. We just have other ideas of how to get there,” he claimed last Tuesday after saying Albany lawmakers shouldn’t be weighing in on criminal sentencing as they negotiate the Empire State’s massive budget.

“If you just keep dealing with the penalties, what happens after people get arrested? You’re still only worrying about what happens after something has already happened,” Heastie said.

Even ex-Gov. David Paterson said he was shocked by the speaker’s position.

“It’s like a revolving door — there’s no opportunity for any type of rehabilitation, there’s no opportunity for contrition with the parole board” without harsher penalties, Paterson said Sunday on 770 WABC’s “The Cats Roundtable.”

“[Heastie] is a very good friend of mine, a very decent person. I’d like to have this conversation with him one-to-one,” the ex-gov added.

Heastie did say he is still open to parts of Hochul’s plan, specifically cutting off organized theft rings.

Retailers and authorities have told The Post that such rings are creating a major underground economy as they work through online resale sites such as eBay and Facebook Marketplace to peddle their illicit wares.

“It’s better off to commit a crime than get a job in New York,” said Francisco Marte, president of New York’s Bodega and Small Business Association, to The Post on Monday.

Marte, whose family alone owns 20 bodegas across the city, said he is “disappointed but not surprised” by Heastie’s remarks.

Some pols “like to put at risk the lives of the business community and the working-class people,” Marte said.

Salvatore Lopiccolo knows this all too well.

Get all the stories that move New York to your inbox

Sign up for our Metro Daily newsletter!

Thanks for signing up!

Please provide a valid email address.

By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy .

Never miss a story.

Lopiccolo was working as a security guard at a Walgreens at the Port Authority Bus Terminal in May 2023 when an alleged shoplifter was caught on video clobbering him — then ended up in the wind after skipping a court date.

“Didn’t I predict this exact scenario?” Lopiccolo quipped at the time.

New Yorkers also would be hard-pressed to forget former Harlem bodega clerk Jose Alba, who fatally stabbed a violent customer in self-defense and ended up charged in the berserk man’s death.

The charges against Alba were eventually dropped after widespread outcry.

Heastie did not immediately respond to a Post request for comment Monday.

Share this article:

Advertisement

An official website of the United States Government

• Kreyòl ayisyen
• Search Toggle search Search Include Historical Content - Any - No Include Historical Content - Any - No Search
• Menu Toggle menu
• INFORMATION FOR…
• Individuals
• Business & Self Employed
• Charities and Nonprofits
• International Taxpayers
• Federal State and Local Governments
• Indian Tribal Governments
• Tax Exempt Bonds
• FILING FOR INDIVIDUALS
• How to File
• When to File
• Where to File
• Update Your Information
• Get Your Tax Record
• Apply for an Employer ID Number (EIN)
• Check Your Amended Return Status
• Get an Identity Protection PIN (IP PIN)
• File Your Taxes for Free
• Bank Account (Direct Pay)
• Payment Plan (Installment Agreement)
• Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS)
• Your Online Account
• Tax Withholding Estimator
• Estimated Taxes
• Where's My Refund
• What to Expect
• Direct Deposit
• Reduced Refunds
• Amend Return

Credits & Deductions

• INFORMATION FOR...
• Businesses & Self-Employed
• Earned Income Credit (EITC)
• Child Tax Credit
• Clean Energy and Vehicle Credits
• Standard Deduction
• Retirement Plans

Forms & Instructions

• POPULAR FORMS & INSTRUCTIONS
• Form 1040 Instructions
• Form 4506-T
• POPULAR FOR TAX PROS
• Form 1040-X
• Circular 230

Direct File officially opens in 12 pilot states following positive early reviews; eligible taxpayers can file online directly with the IRS for free

More in news.

• Topics in the News
• News Releases for Frequently Asked Questions
• Multimedia Center
• Tax Relief in Disaster Situations
• Inflation Reduction Act
• Taxpayer First Act
• Tax Scams/Consumer Alerts
• The Tax Gap
• Fact Sheets
• IRS Tax Tips
• e-News Subscriptions
• IRS Guidance
• Media Contacts
• IRS Statements and Announcements

Taxpayers encouraged to try innovative new option before April 15 deadline

IR-2024-68, March 12, 2024

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service announced today the full-scale launch of the innovative Direct File pilot and encouraged eligible taxpayers in 12 states to try the new service to file their tax returns online for free directly with the IRS.

The pilot effort has been in testing mode for several weeks, allowing early users to file their 2023 federal tax returns online for free and directly with the IRS. Thousands of taxpayers have successfully used the system, and early users are giving the new option positive reviews.

Following the initial Direct File success, the IRS is moving the pilot out of the test phase, allowing all eligible taxpayers in the 12 states – representing 19 million taxpayers – to use the system at any time. Taxpayers can log in to Direct File to start their return and complete it any time before the April filing deadline.

“The early results from Direct File have shown taxpayers like the ease and convenience of the tool, and moving into the full-scale launch of the pilot will give more taxpayers the chance to use this free option,” said IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel. “Expanding Direct File as the tax deadline approaches will provide more taxpayers a way to file directly with the IRS for free, and it will give us more valuable information to assess this pilot. For those who haven’t filed their taxes in these 12 states, we encourage them to visit IRS.gov and see if Direct File is the right option for them.”

Direct File is one of many options that taxpayers have to file their taxes, including tax software and tax professionals. For the pilot, the IRS worked on a streamlined way for people with simpler tax situations to file directly with the agency.

“A team of experts from across government built and tested the Direct File pilot to give taxpayers an easy, accurate free way to file their taxes online directly with the IRS,” Werfel added. “Our goal with the Direct File pilot is to help people meet their tax obligations as easily and quickly as possible. We developed Direct File from the beginning with taxpayers’ help, and we’ll continue to talk to taxpayers about their experience to learn more about what taxpayers want for future digital services.”

Direct File walks the taxpayer through the complexities of the nation’s tax code to complete their filing easily with an accurate calculation of their refund or tax owed. Direct File is designed to be easy for taxpayers to use. At every step, it shows the work behind the calculations, so users can be confident that the tax return is complete and accurate. Once taxpayers start their return on the Direct File site, they can pause and then securely sign in to finish any time before the April filing deadline.

Users can also get support from special IRS customer service representatives through Direct File’s live chat feature. Direct File, like other electronic filing options, allows taxpayers to typically get their refund in less than 21 days when the direct deposit is chosen.

“We’ve gotten great initial feedback from the thousands of taxpayers who used it during testing,” Werfel said. “Many taxpayers we’ve heard from filed their taxes in less than 30 minutes using Direct File and praised it as an easy, no cost tax filing experience.”

Who’s eligible?

Taxpayers in 12 pilot states who meet certain requirements can use Direct File through the April tax deadline. Pilot states include:

• Massachusetts
• New Hampshire
• South Dakota
• Washington State

After completing their federal returns, taxpayers in the states with a state-income tax – Arizona, California, Massachusetts and New York -- will be guided to a state-sponsored tool to complete their state tax return.

The IRS designed the pilot to follow the best practices for launching a new technology platform by starting small, making sure it works and then building from there. The pilot is purposefully limited to cover relatively straightforward tax situations.

The Direct File pilot is an option for taxpayers who fall into these categories:

• Report income earned from jobs that generate a Form W-2; including taxpayers with more than one job with W-2 wages;
• Claim Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and the Credit for Other Dependents;
• Claim the standard deduction and deductions for educator expenses and student loan interest;
• Lived in the same state for the entire calendar year 2023.

Interested taxpayers can go to directfile.irs.gov , where they can determine if they are eligible. Using Direct File requires identity verification through ID.me. Once their identity is verified and they’ve signed in securely to Direct File, they will be providing the tax information directly to the IRS, not a third party.

For taxpayers who visit Direct File but aren’t eligible for the pilot, they will be directed to Free File on IRS.gov . Now in its 22nd filing season, taxpayers across the nation can access free software products provided by IRS Free File trusted partners. Through this public-private partnership, tax preparation and filing software providers make their online products available to eligible taxpayers. Eight private-sector Free File partners provide online guided tax software products this year to any taxpayer with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $79,000 or less in 2023. Free access to online products is available by starting from IRS Free File.

Direct File pilot for filing season 2024

The IRS launched the Direct File pilot for the 2024 filing season. The Inflation Reduction Act mandated that the IRS study interest in and feasibility of creating a direct e-filing tool taxpayers could use to prepare and file their federal income tax return. The IRS commissioned an independent study, which indicated broad interest in such a system, which the IRS detailed in a Direct File Report to Congress in May 2023.

Shortly after that report, as directed by the Treasury Department, the IRS assembled a team of tax experts, technologists, engineers and strategists from across government to build the Direct File system. The IRS worked closely with the U.S. Digital Service and the General Services Administration’s technology office 18F to build and test Direct File.

Initial testing began in early February 2024 with a handful of federal and state government employees, followed by short open availability windows for more taxpayers to start their returns. On March 4, the IRS announced that Direct File would enter final testing, which included an allotment of available spaces with more spaces added every day. Direct File is now open to all eligible taxpayers in pilot states to decide if it is the right option for them to file their 2023 federal tax return online for free, directly with IRS.

•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  Linkedin

Today's Paper | April 02, 2024

Ihc suspends imran, bushra bibi’s sentence in toshakhana case.

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday suspended the 14-year sentences handed out to former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi in the Toshakhana reference.

However, the two will not be released as they have been convicted in other cases.

Imran and Bushra Bibi were sentenced in the Toshakhana reference by an Islamabad accountability court on January 31, days before the general elections. According to the verdict, Imran and Bushra were barred from holding any public office for 10 years and slapped with a fine of Rs787 million each.

A day later, Imran and Bushra Bibi were also sentenced to seven years in jail in a case related to their marriage during the latter’s Iddat period. Prior to this, a special court established under the Official Secrets Act had also sentenced Imran and his foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi to 10 years in prison for the breach of state secrets.

The reference in question was filed against the two by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in December for retaining a jewellery set received from the Saudi crown prince against an undervalued assessment. The anti-graft watchdog had alleged in the reference that during his term as prime minister, Imran and his wife had received a total of 108 gifts from different heads of state and foreign dignitaries.

Bushra Bibi had challenged her conviction on February 17 — a day after Imran did the same in the cipher and Toshakhana cases. The former first lady also challenged a government notification that declared her Banigala residence as a sub-jail following the verdict.

On February 27, the IHC had admitted the appeals against their conviction and had requisitioned records related to the trial court proceedings by March 7.

The IHC division bench had also taken up applications seeking suspension of their sentences till the final adjudication of the main appeals against their conviction. At the outset, the bench overruled the objections to the petitions raised by the registrar’s office.

Earlier in March, the IHC had asked if the authorities had sought permission from Imran before converting his Bani Gala residence into a sub-jail for Bushra Bibi.

Following today’s hearing, Imran’s counsel Barrister Ali Zafar said the IHC “delivered justice”, adding that the “scales of justice have started heading in the right direction”.

Speaking to the media outside the IHC, he said, “The courts are standing upright for justice. The entire nation is standing with the courts.”

He contended that there was “no evidence” behind the conviction and that the jail trial was “unlawful as our counsels were not allowed to appear”. “Our lawyers were made to leave the jail and were not allowed to cross-examine either,” the PTI lawyer said.

“Such cases are considered mistrial and unconstitutional in the history,” Zafar said. He asserted that Imran could not remain in custody in the Toshakhana reference anymore, terming the case “baseless”.

The hearing

Today’s hearing was presided over by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb. Barrister Zafar appeared as the counsel for the ex-premier and his spouse while NAB prosecutor Amjad Pervaiz was also present.

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Farooq told Zafar that his arguments would only be heard if they pertained to the suspension of the Toshakhana sentence and not to the appeal against the conviction. He said that as the appeal against the conviction was already sub judice, both pleas could not be heard concurrently.

The IHC chief justice said the appeal against the conviction would be fixed for hearing after Eidul Fitr.

Here, the NAB prosecutor said, “We have reviewed the verdict. This is a case of sentence suspension.”

At this, the court observed that the “NAB’s stance is highly commendable”.

Zafar again urged the court to hear his arguments in the Toshakhana appeal as well, contending that both were “entirely different cases”.

However, Justice Farooq said the cipher appeal proceedings would conclude within the next or two hearings, after which the Toshakhana one could be heard. “We can hear your petition seeking suspension of the sentence,” he stated.

At one point during the hearing, Justice Aurangzeb asked if the NAB wanted to present any stance on suspending the sentence. To this, the prosecutor replied, “There is no objection to the suspension of the sentence [but] the appeals cannot be heard right now.”

Here, Imran’s counsel requested the court to suspend the conviction along with the sentence, at which Justice Aurangzeb observed, “That matter is before the Supreme Court; let’s leave it for now.”

Subsequently, the court suspended the sentences of Imran and Bushra in light of the NAB prosecutor’s statement.

Accountability court verdict

Judge Moham­mad Bashir had already closed the right of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and asked Imran and his spouse to record their statements under Section 342 (power to examine the accused) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

While Bushra Bibi had recorded her statement in the case, Imran could not. During that hearing, Imran’s legal team had requested the court to restore the right of cross-examination but was turned down by the judge.

While the PTI founder had been presented during the hearing where the sentence was pronounced, his wife had not appeared before the court at the time.

Following the verdict’s announcement, Bushra arrived at Adiala Jail, where the NAB team was already present, to surrender to the authorities following the court’s directives. Subsequently, she had been taken into custody by the anti-graft watchdog.

{try{this.style.height=this.contentWindow.document.body.scrollHeight+'px';}catch{}}, 100)" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="height:400px;position:relative" src="https://www.dawn.com/news/card/1810520" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-popups allow-modals allow-forms">

How­ever, she was moved to Imran’s Bani Gala home after it was declared sub-jail in a late-night notification.

Her shifting to the residence has been under discussion for weeks as she and her husband denied submitting any application to declare the residence as a sub-jail.

In an earlier hearing, the Adiala Jail administration had opposed moving her back to the prison, claiming that overcrowding posed security threats for the former first lady.

Imran Khan, Bushra Bibi sentenced to 14 years in Toshakhana reference

PTI raises concerns on report of Bushra Bibi’s ill health at Banigala

IHC admits Imran, Bushra, Qureshi’s appeals for hearing

ڈان انویسٹی گیشن: بحریہ ٹاؤن کراچی کی مسلسل غیرقانونی توسیع کی مشکوک کہانی

سکندر اعظم نے کس بادشاہ کی موت پر کہا کہ ایک بادشاہ کو اس طرح نہیں مرنا چاہیے؟

‘زخم اور ہڈی ٹوٹی ہوتی تو بریانی کیسے بناتا؟’، انور مقصود کی افواہوں کی تردید

Has Toshakana Case Failed To Withstand The Judicial Scrutiny?

Israel Declares War on Iran

Arthur Balfour Was A Raging Anti-semite: Zachary Foster

Why Has Pakistan Historically Kept PKR Overvalued?

Internet Blocks Threaten Pakistan’s Creator Economy

Week’s Must-Know Headlines: Another State Dept Official Resigns Over Govt’s Stance On Gaza Conflict

How Is World Reacting To ICJ Order On Gaza Aid?

Market Wrap Up: KSE-100 Index Closes At 67,005.10 Points

Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.

Latest Stories

PTI’s Omar Ayub made opposition leader in National Assembly

Iran president says Israel’s Syria attack ‘will not go unanswered’

Senate polls under way in NA, Sindh and Punjab assemblies; postponed in KP amid oath-taking dispute

Israel leaves Gaza’s largest hospital in ruins

Despite flak, Nawaz chairs another government meeting

Israel ‘flattens’ Iranian embassy in Damascus

‘Dead Nazi’ to ‘Sons of Amalek’: How Israel is weaponising music to dehumanise Palestinians

Filmmaker Mahera Omar’s documentary wins award at Nepal film festival

Trying out four very different iftar menus in Islamabad

Most popular.

Pakistan ‘unlikely to break free from IMF support, incomplete PM terms’, says IIF

Pakistan on brink of default due to tax evasion, says Asif

Babar Azam returns as skipper as PCB hands him T20, ODI captaincy in ‘strategic move’

Govt hikes petrol price by Rs9.66/litre

Dawn Investigations: Bahria Town investors — road to nowhere

QAU — university or jail?

Two troops martyred in Gwadar gun attack

Cartoon: 30 March, 2024

IHC judges’ letter: Over 300 lawyers call on SC to take notice under Article 184(3)

How do the Senate elections work?

180 days of protest: Why are the Pakhtuns in Chaman encamped on the Pak-Afghan border?

Editorial: Jillani’s recusal strengthens the argument that judiciary must address letter issue internally

Arrest of two serving CMs on election eve has revitalised a foundering campaign to dislodge Modi

Is there now a winning team?

The IHC six

Autism and SDGs

Pro-poor reform

Fighting monopolisation

Letter inquiry

Expanding the net, katcha badlands.

Government support?

Biden’s letter, family sins, strikes hit gaza as truce talks set to resume in cairo, doha.