394
Defending the Constitution
possessed all the powers of government. Political power, in general, was
divided between two levels of government under the principle of federalism. The national government was to be a government of limited and
enumerated powers that were specifically laid out in the Constitution.
Those powers not delegated to the national government remained with
the States as ‘‘reserved’’ powers. The limited power that the national government possessed was further restricted because it was separated among
three relatively independent branches—Congress, the President, and the
Judiciary. This provided the machinery for the responsible exercise of
power. The problem with the Articles of Confederation was that they did
not provide for a proper distribution of power. Too much power had
been concentrated in the States, making it difficult for the national government to deal effectively with foreign governments, interstate rivalries,
insurrections, and military threats. And, what little power the national
government did possess was concentrated in one branch—Congress. The
government of the United States under the Articles thus suffered from
‘‘anarchy in the parts’’ rather than ‘‘tyranny in the head.’’ It was so weak,
the Federalists argued, that it could not promote economic prosperity or
provide for the safety of the people. These were the bare essentials of
government. The new Constitution, as the Preamble stated, promised to
‘‘establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. . . .’’
The first step in gaining public support for the proposed Constitution
was to explain and justify the redistribution of power crafted by the
Framers. The American system of federalism, unprecedented in the history of nations, was a unique arrangement that seemed foreign to some
and unworkable to others. What was the nature of this new union? If
sovereignty was to be divided between the general or Federal government and the States, who had ultimate authority to govern? These were
difficult questions, but the authors of The Federalist answered them with
consummate skill.
The nature of the new union, explained Madison, was neither wholly
national nor wholly federal, but contained both national and federal elements. Regarding the basic foundation of the government, it was federal
because the Constitution must be ratified by the several States. With respect to the legislature, the new Union was partly national and partly