Democracy is an experimental system. I like it when states try out new ideas. I think we ought to expand, not contract, our federalist system.
Every day, we publish articles at 'The Federalist' with which I disagree.
What we try to do at 'The Federalist' is to provide opinion and analysis that brings in a lot of different perspectives from across the Right. You'll see, a lot of times, us running an article that argues one side of something and then an article that argues the opposite.
'The Federalist' is a small staff, and our close-knit family of senior contributors outwork our competition because of that closeness.
During the election of Washington's successor, it became apparent that the country was sharply divided and that the dissatisfaction with Federalist policies was deep and fervent.
As Alexander Hamilton said in 'The Federalist Papers,' law is about the exercise of judgment and not will. Judicial activism is best understood as substituting judicial opinion for the command of law. The law is not an infinitely malleable tool.
When Jefferson and the Republicans rallied to the Union and to the existing Federalist organization, the fabric of traditional American democracy was almost completely woven.
The rich and the well-born, according to the Federalist Papers, was greatly feared by the founders.
Our country, if you read the 'Federalist Papers,' is about disagreement. It's about pitting faction against faction, divided government, checks and balances. The hero in American political tradition is the man who stands up to the mob - not the mob itself.
The Internet's distinct configuration may have facilitated anonymous threats, copyright infringement, and cyberattacks, but it has also kindled the flame of freedom in ways that the framers of the American constitution would appreciate - the Federalist papers were famously authored pseudonymously.
