Chapter 2 Exercises

These exercises ask you to engage directly with primary sources, with the strongest arguments on contested questions, and with your own state's history. Reading the founding-era texts is the only way to understand why the framers' arguments still feel alive when you read them. The exercises below assume access to the internet and a notebook (paper or digital). Most can be done in 30–90 minutes; the Democracy Audit element runs across the semester.

Exercise 1: Read Federalist No. 10

Go to the Library of Congress's online edition of the Federalist Papers (guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text) and read Federalist No. 10 in full. It is roughly 3,400 words. Then answer the following:

  1. Define faction in Madison's words. Quote the exact sentence in which he defines the term. What does Madison say is the most common and durable source of faction?
  2. The two cures. Madison says there are two ways to cure the mischiefs of faction: removing the causes and controlling the effects. Why does he reject both methods of removing the causes?
  3. The surprise. Madison argues that a large republic is better at controlling factions than a small one. Why does this cut against older republican theory? Find the exact passage where he makes this argument and quote it.
  4. Identify one move in the essay that surprised you. Write three sentences explaining why it surprised you and whether you find it persuasive.

What you turn in: A 400–600 word written response, with at least one direct quote from each of the three numbered questions.

Exercise 2: Read Brutus No. 1

Go to a reliable Anti-Federalist text source (the Constitution Society maintains the full Brutus essays at constitution.org/2-Authors/afp/brutus.htm; the Library of Congress and the Avalon Project at Yale also host the texts). Read Brutus No. 1, published October 18, 1787. It is roughly 5,800 words. Then:

  1. Identify Brutus's core argument against the proposed Constitution. What does he predict will happen if it is ratified, and on what reasoning?
  2. The "necessary and proper" clause. Brutus warns specifically about Article I, Section 8's grant of power to Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper" for executing its enumerated powers. Why does he think this clause is dangerous? Quote his argument.
  3. The size argument. Brutus argues, citing Montesquieu, that a republic of the size proposed cannot govern itself without becoming despotic. Reconstruct his argument in your own words.
  4. Compare with Madison. Brutus's argument about the size of the republic is exactly the argument that Madison rebuts in Federalist No. 10. They knew each other's work. Identify two specific points on which they directly disagree.

What you turn in: A 500–700 word written response. Include at least two quotes from Brutus.

Exercise 3: Steel-man originalism

This is a steel-manning exercise. Your task is not to defend a position you already hold; it is to articulate the strongest version of a position regardless of whether you agree with it.

Imagine you have been asked to brief a thoughtful friend on why originalism is the correct theory of constitutional interpretation. Your friend leans toward the view that the Constitution should be read in light of contemporary values; she has not seriously engaged with the originalist case. Your job is to make the most persuasive case you can for originalism, in roughly 800 words.

Constraints: - You may not cite "what the courts say." You must give reasons, not authority. - You must address at least one obvious counter-argument from the living-constitutionalist side and explain how an originalist responds. - You may consult Randy Barnett, Lawrence Solum, William Baude, or Antonin Scalia's A Matter of Interpretation (1997) for source material. Cite anything you draw from.

What you turn in: An 800-word memo. At the end, in 100–150 words, write whether you found yourself persuaded by your own argument. Honesty is graded.

Exercise 4: Steel-man living constitutionalism

Same exercise, opposite direction. Imagine you have been asked to brief a thoughtful friend on why living constitutionalism is the correct theory. Your friend leans toward originalism; she takes seriously the argument that judges who read the Constitution as evolving are simply substituting their own political views for law. Your job, in roughly 800 words, is to make the most persuasive case you can for the living-constitutionalist position.

Constraints: - Address the originalist objection that living constitutionalism licenses unaccountable judicial lawmaking. - Explain how a living constitutionalist responds to the charge that the method makes the Constitution mean whatever judges say it means. - You may draw on David Strauss's The Living Constitution (2010), Jack Balkin's Living Originalism (2011), Justice Brennan's 1985 Georgetown speech "The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Ratification," or William Brennan's broader judicial writing.

What you turn in: An 800-word memo. At the end, again in 100–150 words, write whether you were persuaded by your own argument.

If you completed both Exercise 3 and Exercise 4, write one more paragraph (150 words) on what it felt like to make the strongest case for both sides. Were you more persuaded by one than the other? Were you persuaded by neither? This is one of the most important reflective moments in the book. Be honest.

Exercise 5: Apply Madison

Below is a contemporary controversy. Apply Federalist No. 10's analysis to it.

The case. Suppose a state legislature passes a law banning employees of state universities from teaching certain controversial topics in the classroom. Supporters argue the law prevents indoctrination by faculty whose views are wildly out of step with the state's voters. Opponents argue the law is censorship that violates academic freedom and the First Amendment.

Your tasks:

  1. Identify the factions. In Madison's sense, what factions are at work in this controversy? Be specific about who is in each faction and what they want.
  2. The majority-faction question. Madison's worry was that majority factions could oppress minorities. Is the legislature's majority a "majority faction" in Madison's sense? Why or why not? Be careful: not every majority is a faction.
  3. The extended-republic remedy. Federalist No. 10 argues that a large republic dilutes factional power. How does that argument apply at the state level? Does the same logic protect minorities at the state level the way it does at the federal level?
  4. The institutional remedy. What institutional check, if any, would Madison have expected to constrain this kind of legislation?

What you turn in: A 600–800 word analytical memo.

Exercise 6: Democracy Audit — your state's ratification debate

This is the chapter's contribution to the year-long Democracy Audit project. You will return to this material later in the course.

  1. Identify your state. (If you are an international student, choose a state — the most populous of the original thirteen, Virginia, is recommended for richness of available material.) When was the state's ratifying convention? How close was the vote?
  2. Find the Anti-Federalists. Who were the prominent Anti-Federalists in your state? What were their main objections? (Storing's The Complete Anti-Federalist, 7 volumes, University of Chicago Press, is the canonical compilation; many state-level pamphlets are available online via the Online Library of Liberty or the Library of Congress.)
  3. Find the Federalists. Who led the pro-ratification side in your state? What arguments did they emphasize that addressed your state's specific concerns?
  4. Modern echoes. Read your state's Anti-Federalist writings carefully. Identify two specific worries that, in your judgment, have aged well — that is, that have been borne out, or that remain live concerns in modern American politics. Explain why.

What you turn in: A 700–900 word historical memo. Cite primary sources (with URLs or printed-source citations).

If your state was admitted to the Union after 1789, choose a state from the original thirteen. New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania have particularly rich Anti-Federalist literatures.

Exercise 7: Translate the constitutional language

The Constitution's language is sometimes opaque to modern readers. Pick one of the following passages from Article I, Section 9, and render it in plain modern English (300–400 words). Then explain (200–300 words) what political worry the clause was intended to address, and whether that worry remains live in 2026.

Option A — Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 (the suspension clause):

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Option B — Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 (the title-of-nobility clause):

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Option C — Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the appropriations clause):

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

What you turn in: A 500–700 word memo. The plain-English translation should be readable by a high-school senior. The political-purpose explanation should cite either The Federalist, the Convention debates, or a modern constitutional commentary.

Exercise 8: A short essay

Write a 1,000–1,200 word essay responding to the following prompt:

The American founding was both an extraordinary intellectual achievement and a moral failure. Discuss, with specific reference to (a) one institutional design choice you find especially impressive and (b) one contradiction you find especially difficult to defend.

Constraints: - Cite Federalist Papers by number (e.g., Federalist No. 10). - Cite at least one Anti-Federalist source. - Address the question of how to hold both halves together — the achievement and the failure — rather than collapsing into one or the other.

This is the chapter's culminating exercise. There is no single right answer. The grading rubric rewards seriousness, specificity, and the willingness to take both sides of the contradiction seriously.

Exercise 9: The "necessary and proper" thought experiment

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The "necessary and proper" clause has been the center of constitutional argument for two centuries. Hamilton (in his 1791 opinion to Washington defending the constitutionality of a national bank) read it broadly: Congress could employ any means rationally related to a legitimate end. Jefferson (in his contemporaneous opinion opposing the bank) read it narrowly: "necessary" meant strictly indispensable, not merely convenient. The Supreme Court resolved the question in Hamilton's favor in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), and the broad reading has governed federal power ever since.

Your task:

  1. Read both opinions — Hamilton's and Jefferson's 1791 memos to Washington on the bank. Both are short (roughly 5,000 words combined) and are widely available online (try founders.archives.gov).
  2. Identify the strongest two arguments on each side.
  3. Apply both readings to a modern question. Suppose Congress passes a law requiring all employers above a certain size to provide paid family leave, justifying it under the Commerce Clause. Under Hamilton's reading of "necessary and proper," is this law constitutional? Under Jefferson's? What turns on the difference?
  4. Connect to the Brutus warning. Brutus, in Brutus No. 1, identified "necessary and proper" as one of the most dangerous clauses in the proposed Constitution. Did he correctly anticipate the dispute that would follow ratification? Quote his prediction.

What you turn in: A 700–900 word memo. Cite Hamilton, Jefferson, and Brutus directly. The exercise is intended to demonstrate that the founding-era debates remain live two centuries later — and that you, having read them, are now able to participate in them.

Exercise 10: Reflection

This is a non-graded reflective exercise. The textbook recommends you write it anyway.

In 300–500 words, write what you came into this chapter believing about the Founders, and what you think now. The honest answers tend to fall into a few patterns:

  • "I came in thinking they were wise patriots; now I see them as more flawed."
  • "I came in thinking they were slaveholders whose work doesn't matter; now I see the contradiction more carefully."
  • "I came in not thinking about them much at all; now I see why they matter."
  • "I came in already knowing this material; the chapter confirmed and refined what I knew."

Whatever your honest answer is, write it. Reflective writing of this kind is one of the most underused tools in political education. It forces you to articulate your priors, which is the precondition for examining whether they were correct.

If you keep a notebook for the course, this is a useful entry to refer back to. By Chapter 38, you will have the chance to write it again, and the comparison between the two entries will tell you something about what the course has done to you.