The approach given to the right interpretation of the Constitution is supposed with the group of people known as Publius. This pseudonym was taken by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in their reciprocal activities and efforts to make closer relation to all democratic flows. Such urge was concerned with the sustainability and firmness of the new country, meaning the United States. In this respect, it is necessary to work out whether Publius’s assertion and rational approaches provide a departure from or reflection of the sentiments, expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The thing is that this normative law document is a creation of another politician, Thomas Jefferson, who also participated directly in the process of the state power formation. In this respect, the idea of whether any similar sentiments are reflecting in Publius’s the Federalist and in Jefferson’s the Declaration of Independence provides direct points on the same ideals highlighted in both documents.
Looking at the essays by Publius, it is necessary to admit that in a form of a monologue the intentions of the authors are rather straightforward and reliable in comparison with other law documents of that time. Furthermore, the Federalist in its background data comprises the whole fields of great concernment for the young country on its initial stage. The idea of freedom was at that the most significant for showing designation of British American Colonies into free from any political impact other than the federal governing. In this point the Federalist essays on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are fully unified: “…anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger” (Federalist No. 51 para. 10).
Hence, the ability of each state to provide functions independently is recognized by Hamilton. Thus, the theoretical approach of the document makes it easy to understand the main points which were described in the Declaration. In Jefferson’s work, the points on equality of individuals and the supremacy of the law are underlined in both documents. Nonetheless, it is necessary to admit that the Federalist and the Declaration of Independence have mutual reflections of the same points. Moreover, the work of Publius is encoded with more explanation of the Constitution of the United States. Thereupon, the thought about the Federalist’s departure from the Declaration is possible solely when looking at the size of both law documents. In other words, Jefferson was apt to concise the wholeness of ideas about Independence in one declaration with several points. On the other hand, Publius described another significant document, the Constitution, in detail.
The truths of the Declaration logically contemplate the reasoning maintained in the essays of Publius. The credibility of ideas absorbed some of the common intentions provided by the Founding Fathers in their urge for independence. Hence, the plan of Publius implemented in The Federalist No. 10 and 51 reckons with the ideas promoted in the Declaration. However, more attention is dedicated to the difference between democracy and republic. The significance of the federal government is not less. Here lies the similarity between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Hence, the freedom of states is reflected both in the Declaration and in The Federalist No. 51. However, in the Declaration it is observed with more glimpses at the freedom, as it is, without notion on self-government and self-administration: “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES” (the Declaration of Independence para. 21). Looking at the grounding of each statement in both declarative documents one cannot but notice that this reflection stands among the most prior. Federalist No. 51 highlights the significance of the situation at hand in the following way: “…the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated” (Federalist No. 51 para. 10)… These attempts to take all controversies into account is also depicted in another essay by Publius: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking” (Federalist No. 10 para. 10). It is fair to admit that the points described and highlighted in the Constitution of the United States are straightforward to what is depicted in the Declaration. Their additional interpretation in the Federalist is reflected in a straightforward approach using merely the same assertions outlined as the continuation of the political process in the US in the late eighteenth century.
Thus, the Declaration of Independence has a mere extent of reflection according to the Federalist essays. The extent to which Publius makes reflection or departure as of the bilateral approach of the Declaration and the Federalist papers can be measured due to the precedents in current law. In other words, the normative law acts and documents of federal significance were grounded on the previous and current experience of politicians throughout the world. In this respect, the genuine character of the Federalist does not consider modern changes in the American society and points to the human factor.
Ahern, Gregory S. Virtue, Wisdom, Experience, Not Abstract Rights, Form the Basis of the American Republic The Center for Constitutional Studies. 2004. Web.
Declaration of Independence, 1776. Web.
The Federalist No. 10. “The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)”. Daily Advertiser. Thursday, 1787. Web.
The Federalist No. 15. “Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union”. Independent Journal. Saturday, 1787. Web.