The Federalists Reloaded | No. 9
Flip This Government: Building a Better Union
The Original Question Was Never Just About Government
When Hamilton wrote Federalist No. 9, he wasn’t trying to wrap the Constitution in patriotic poetry. He was trying to convince people who had just escaped one powerful government that creating a new one was not only necessary but survivable.
The Anti-Federalists weren’t exactly sold on that idea. And honestly, why would they be?
They had just won independence from a king and fought a bloody revolution, and now the same people who railed against British consolidation were floating the idea of a national government with real teeth. It wasn’t paranoia to ask what could go wrong. It was experience talking.
But Hamilton wasn’t pitching a monarchy in disguise. He was offering an upgrade.
He looked at the Articles of Confederation and saw a structure that simply couldn’t bear the weight of a growing republic. States were behaving like rival countries. Congress had no real way to enforce laws or raise money. The military was weak. Trade was a mess. Foreign nations had no reason to respect us. Domestic rebellions were popping up.
Hamilton didn’t want to centralize power for the sake of it. He wanted a country that could stand on its own feet.
What he proposed in Federalist No. 9 was a design: a way to transform the chaos of post-Revolution America into something sustainable. Strong enough to survive scale, disagreement, and the sheer human impulse to grab more power than you’re supposed to have.
His pitch was this: a well-built government, rooted in structure rather than sentiment, could actually protect liberty better than a flimsy one built on idealism.
The Anti-Federalists Had a Point, But Hamilton Had a Plan
The Anti-Federalists warned that a large republic would break the bond between the government and the governed. They believed that distant power would become unaccountable. They feared a president who would behave like a monarch, courts that would supersede state laws, and a legislature that would prioritize its interests over serving the people.
They weren’t wrong to be concerned.
In fact, their fears were so compelling that Hamilton didn't try to dismiss them. He acknowledged the dangers and then argued that those dangers could be managed through thoughtful design.
Hamilton pointed out that political science had evolved. Lessons from the past could now be applied in the form of constitutional engineering. He wasn’t denying the fragility of liberty. He was saying that fragility could be reinforced.
He laid out five tools:
Divide power among departments,
Check the branches against each other,
Create an independent judiciary,
Represent the people rather than relying on direct democracy, and, most importantly,
Use federalism to spread out the pressure so that no single part of the system can dominate.
He believed that ambition could be harnessed and contained, not eliminated. The goal wasn’t to find perfect people but to create a system where imperfect people couldn’t do permanent damage.
So, Did It Work?
For a while, yes.
For most of the next two centuries, the system remained remarkably stable. It expanded westward, absorbed internal conflict, fought and won wars, evolved through crises, and incorporated new voices through constitutional amendments.
It wasn’t always fair, and it was rarely fast, but it adapted and endured because it was built to do exactly that.
But over time, the structure Hamilton trusted has been worn down by habit, loopholes, and the political convenience of taking the easy way out.
Congress passed fewer laws but handed off more power to executive agencies. Presidents discovered they could govern through executive orders and emergency declarations that never expire. Courts drifted further into ideological territory and started behaving like political bodies in robes. And the people lost faith in a system that started to feel more like a closed club than a representative democracy.
It’s not that the Constitution stopped working. It’s that the system short-circuited the program.
Hamilton didn’t expect the system to work by default. He expected it to be maintained, reinforced, and repaired when necessary. But instead of fixing what’s worn down, we’ve let dysfunction settle in as the new normal.
And that brings us back to the original question:
What would it look like to build a better government again, using the same principles Hamilton believed in but applying them to the problems we face now?
Rebuilding the Republic, This Time With a User Manual
Hamilton wasn’t a sentimentalist. He was a builder. He viewed politics the way an engineer views a blueprint, asking where the stress points were and how to reinforce them. That’s the approach we need right now.
Not sweeping overhauls. Not pie-in-the-sky reform packages. Just a hard look at where the framework is sagging and how to support it again.
Start with Congress, the Branch That Forgot It Was in Charge
Congress is supposed to be the engine of the republic; the place where laws are made, budgets are written, and the executive is held accountable. However, lately, it feels like Congress exists mostly to fundraise and engage in partisan debates on cable news.
Most legislation is crafted behind closed doors, bundled into unreadable omnibus bills, and passed just in time to avoid a shutdown.
We need to restore regular legislative order, not as a throwback but as a basic function of self-government. That means single-issue bills, public debate, and committee processes that aren’t just for show.
We need to demand that restoring the deliberative process would make Congress more transparent and more accountable to the public. It would also slow down the frantic rush to legislate by crisis.
Rein in the Presidency Before the Job Becomes Unrecognizable
The presidency has drifted so far from its original boundaries that today’s executive power would be unthinkable to most of the Founders.
Presidents now issue executive orders with the force of law, declare emergencies that last for years, and deploy troops without meaningful oversight.
Cato’s research on emergency powers post-COVID showed just how fragile the line is between executive action and executive overreach. They’ve called for automatic sunset provisions on emergency declarations and stronger congressional oversight before new powers are granted.
A better presidency doesn’t mean a weaker one. It means one that remembers its constitutional limits.
Make the Courts Less Political Without Making Them Powerless
The judiciary is supposed to interpret the law, not write it. But public confidence in the courts has plummeted. Not because the courts have more power, but because they seem to wield it inconsistently and ideologically.
Some have proposed rotating terms or term limits for Supreme Court justices, staggered so that every president gets two appointments. That would lower the political temperature, reduce nomination trench warfare, and prevent the court from becoming a permanent ideological battlefield.
Give States Room to Lead Again
Hamilton never believed that all power should be centralized in Washington. He believed in a strong federal government but also one that left room for the states to govern, experiment, and adapt.
The Mercatus Center has done outstanding work showing how state-led reforms in healthcare, occupational licensing, and education often outperform national programs. Their research argues for “permissionless innovation,” where states don’t need federal waivers to try new models.
In other words, let states act like laboratories of democracy, not just branch offices of the federal government.
Make Money in Politics Transparent, Even if You Can’t Eliminate It
It’s not realistic to get money out of politics. But it’s entirely possible to make that money visible, traceable, and accountable.
Every campaign dollar should be disclosed in real-time. Every political ad should list its donors. Every 501(c)(4) organization that attempts to act like a political committee should be required to register as such.
The Institute for Free Speech, while defending political speech rights, has also acknowledged that transparency improves public trust. Their proposals for voluntary disclosure incentives are a good start. The key isn’t censorship. It’s sunlight.
Rebuild Civic Knowledge So People Can Actually Use the System
A system built on the consent of the governed only works if the governed know what they’re consenting to. I know I sound like a broken record, but I am doing this because I believe that we have a woefully inadequate understanding of our government.
Civic literacy is embarrassingly low. Many Americans can’t name the three branches of government, let alone explain how a bill becomes law.
The American Enterprise Institute’s report on restoring civic confidence ties this directly to institutional trust. People who understand government are more likely to participate, vote, and hold their representatives accountable.
Civic education isn’t a luxury. It’s a national security issue.
Final Word: No One’s Coming to Save the Republic
We’re not waiting on a second constitutional convention. We’re not going to fix this with a new party or a new messiah figure.
What Hamilton gave us was a blueprint for a system that could absorb shocks and adapt under pressure, but only if people were willing to maintain it.
The Anti-Federalists were justified in their fear of consolidation and unchecked power without accountability. Hamilton was right to believe that a good structure could outlast bad moments. And we’re right back where they were: staring down a system that feels strained and asking whether it can still do what we need it to do.
The answer, for now, is yes. But only if we start treating government like something we have to take care of, not something that runs on autopilot.
Hamilton believed that liberty didn’t survive on sentiment. It survived on structure. And if we want to keep what we’ve built, we’d better get back to the business of building.
Another excellent essay - am learning so much. Thank you! I favor civic education that includes media education (e.g. Jon Haidt’s work). I also think we couple media education (part of civic education) with better regulation of technology. The current media environment makes it too easy for ideologues on the left and right to make people afraid of and angry with other people, especially people who are different from them. Consequently, we have given too much voice and status to the toxic personalities who are unfit for public service. All of this is happening when the world is headed toward depopulation. We should be doing everything in our power to build a first class immigration system that increases our population - instead of scaring people away and building camps for immigrants. For reference on the risks of depopulation, I cite Dean Spear’s new book entitled “After the Spike” (2025).