Suchergebnisse
Suchergebnisse:
Federalist No. 84 is a political essay by American Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, the eighty-fourth and penultimate essay in a series known as The Federalist Papers. It was published July 16, July 26, and August 9, 1788, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist Papers were published.
- Alexander Hamilton
- July 16, 1788; July 26, 1788; August 9, 1788
- Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered
- The Independent Journal, New York Packet, The Daily Advertiser
4. Jan. 2002 · “The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the congress may by law have directed.”
The Federalist Papers : No. 84. Previous Document. Next Document. Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered. From McLEAN's Edition, New York. HAMILTON. To the People of the State of New York:
15. Sept. 2021 · This is the second longest essay in The Federalist, a collection of newspaper essays by Publius (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay; Hamilton wrote number 84) published in New York City to support adoption of the Constitution. It summarizes Federalist arguments that the proposed Constitution does not need a bill of rights.
Publius: The Federalist 84 New York, 28 May 1788. This essay, written by Alexander Hamilton, first appeared in Volume II of the book edition of The Federalist. It was reprinted as number 83 in the New York Independent Journal, 16, 26 July, 9 August, and as number 84 in the New York Packet, 29 July, 8, 12 August.
In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton, under the pseudonym “Publius,” argues that a bill of rights is not only unnecessary in a well designed constitution but is even dangerous.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84, 575--81. 28 May 1788. The most considerable of these remaining objections is, that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights. Among other answers given to this, it has been upon different occasions remarked, that the constitutions of several of the states are in a similar predicament.
