The Original Argument: The Federalists' Case for the Constitution, Adapted for the 21st Century

by Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck revisited Thomas Paine’s famous pre-Revolutionary War call to action in his #1 New York Times bestseller Glenn Beck’s Common Sense. Now he brings his historical acumen and political savvy to this fresh, new interpretation of The Federalist Papers, the 18th-century collection of political essays that defined and shaped our Constitution and laid bare the “original argument” between states’ rights and big federal government—a debate as relevant and urgent today as it was at the birth of our nation.

Adapting a selection of these essential essays—pseudonymously authored by the now well-documented triumvirate of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—for a contemporary audience, Glenn Beck has had them reworked into “modern” English so as to be thoroughly accessible to anyone seeking a better understanding of the Founding Fathers’ intent and meaning when laying the groundwork of our government. Beck provides his own illuminating commentary and annotations and, for a number of the essays, has brought together the viewpoints of both liberal and conservative historians and scholars, making this a fair and insightful perspective on the historical works that remain the primary source for interpreting Constitutional law and the rights of American citizens.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, American History, Political Science, Historical, Philosophy

430 pages, Paperback

First published June 14, 2010

About the author

Glenn Edward Lee Beck is one of America's leading radio and television personalities. His quick wit, candid opinions and engaging personality have made The Glenn Beck Program the third highest rated radio program in America and Glenn Beck, one of the most successful new shows on the Fox News Channel. His unique blend of modern-day storytelling and insightful views on current events allowed him to achieve the extraordinary feat of having #1 New York Times bestsellers in both fiction and non-fiction. Beck also stars in a live stage show and is the publisher of Fusion magazine.

Online, he is the editor of GlennBeck.com and the publisher of TheBlaze.com.

Beck is the author of six consecutive #1 New York Times Bestsellers including his latest book, the thriller The Overton Window. When The Christmas Sweater, his first novel, debuted at #1 on the fiction list, Beck became one of a handful of authors to write books that reached #1 on both the fiction and non-fiction NYT lists.

Reviews

[Glen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Radio host Glenn Beck explains the Federalist Papers in plain ordinary language so that it is understandable to today's students.

He does a fairly good job, even though his reputation is so damaged, many will not read this.

[Naftoli · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book, "The Original Argument," is a very good idea, namely, translate The Federalist Papers into modern English thus rendering it accessible to the contemporary reader. It is obvious that Glenn Beck (or a ghost writer?) put a lot of energy into this 400 page work. However, it is often difficult to know when James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay are speaking and when it is a commentary, emphasis, underscore, exaggeration, or distortion on the part of Glenn Beck.

From the beginning, the reader is treated to Beck's unswerving and dedicated beliefs to his version of God and he is very transparent about his feelings; though he doesn't use the term 'sacred' he clearly sees The Federalist papers as the work of God or inspired by him. He makes very passionate arguments that one should see the intent of God in the documents. While I admire his conviction, what about those who do not share his version of God? Are we on the wrong side? It appears that they are.

Beck doesn't seem to understand speaking and writing conventions. Nearly every time the writers refer to "Providence" Beck comments then or later about the writer's deep conviction to God. In today's world people - regardless of their beliefs or disbeliefs - say "Oh my God," "God Bless You," and the like. Yet these exclamations are not intended as a proclamation of faith. Fact is, the three men in question, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay (though one could argue that Jay was somewhat religious by today's standards) were Renaissance men and Deists. Beck implies that the Founding Fathers, in general, were deeply religious, having a personal relationship with God. Such talk is atavistic given the beliefs of these men. There is much to say about this and I would expect a prominent and educated man like Beck to understand the role of Providence within a Renaissance/Deist framework.

Before being a special education teacher I taught U.S. history so I am familiar with the Federalist and anti-Federalist positions, though I am certainly not an expert. Beck, in my view, builds a strawman argument by repeatedly focusing on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Of course its weaknesses included the inability to print universal currency and conscript soldiers for national defense, etc. But there were positive things about the Articles of Confederacy that Glenn refuses to comment on, as if the Federalist argument is the only one. Indeed, our Federal government is currently engaged in activities, to which the writers of the Articles of Confederacy would most assuredly have pointed out, "Ah ha, that's what we didn't want to happen!" It felt very unbalanced like partisan politics.

This book, though a very good idea, struck me as a distortion 'par excellance.' What is more, it read like a treatise of Glenn Beck's personal ideologies rather than a translation of The Federalist Papers. Try though I did, it was difficult to hear Madison, Hamilton, and Jay through the personal emphasis of Beck and his style which seems to be, "take a concept and pound the reader over the head with it by repeating it 35 times" is vexing. He does have an excellent command of English and I jotted down many phrases to add to my active vocabulary. On a positive note, I admire Beck's support of Israel and the Israeli people, which is why I was eager to read his book, but his political support of Israelis has no connection to the disappointment that is this book.

I find it difficult to take seriously a person who pins the weight and truth of his arguments on, 'God is on my side.' Such a position requires no comment and no serious consideration.

[Julie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow, it only took me a few MONTHS to get through this! :) I'm giving this translation of the Federalist Papers five stars not because of a couldn't-put-it-down plot or amazing characters, but for its importance - every American should read this. It's the what, why and how of our Constitution. The Federalist Papers explain WHAT it says (do high schools still make kids read the Constitution? I highly doubt it...), they explain WHY this or that was included in the Constitution, and also explain HOW each Article and Section is supposed to work or be put into action. The Federalist Papers (let's say FP) were written by Hamilton, Madison and John Jay (under the name "Publius") in 1787-88, defending their months of work during the Constitutional Convention and their result - a groundbreaking, original document that literally gave power to the people. They had a voice without the threat of violence, a MAJOR difference from governments around the world. Yet many Americans were hesitant of putting this document into action though, afraid that the few powers given to the federal government would result in a monarchy. They had valid reason to be afraid of course, having fought hard for years and paid a terrible price to extricate themselves from that very thing.

But before I get too far into the details, I must say that at first I was afraid of a "translation" that would have Beck's opinion hidden inside, that he'd somehow alter the words in a way to include his own personal thoughts. Not so. Each section or FP discussed has two original quotes, and after finding those same quotes in the translation, it's clear that Beck literally translated or "dumbed it down" into modern-day language.

For example, here's an original quote: "Allowing the utmost latitude to the love of power which any reasonable man can require, I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptation the persons entrusted with administration of the general government could ever feel to divest the States of the authorities of that description."

And the translation: "However, even if I allowed for the greatest amount of love of power possible in a reasonable man, I confess that I don't know of any reason why those in authority within the General government would wish to take for themselves any of the states' powers." (Not as beautifully written, but easier to understand, right?)

On to the meat! While reading through these papers, there were a few things that really surprised me:

1. The federal government was allowed only a handful of powers. Literally. You can count them on two hands. That has been reversed immensely these days, with the fed. gov't getting their fingers into everything from education to health care to what food we eat and what kind of light bulbs are in our homes. (!!!!????) Ridiculous. The people were to rely on their local gov't for everything related to their everyday lives except for things like coining money, navy and military needs, foreign commerce, etc. You get the idea. Now our states are dependent on and can't even function without federal help. Which leads me to...

2. The States were to hold powers that allowed them to function without the fed. gov't, but the fed. gov't could not function without the states. For example, the people elect their state representatives, the state reps elect who serves in the fed. gov't., etc. Not the other way around. The powers given to the fed. gov't were listed specifically in the Constitution - the States retained EVERYTHING else. The people are more disposed to be loyal to their local leaders, not leaders who are a thousand miles away and don't know their local situations. There were SO many advantages given to the states and powers to hold the fed. gov't in check. It's alarming to see this so reversed and the people not standing up to keep Washington in check. From FP #46 (Madison): "Ambitious encroachments of the fed. gov't, on the authority of the State gov'ts would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm...But what degree of madness could ever drive the fed. gov't to such an extremity?" My thoughts exactly. The founders could never conceive of the states losing as much power as they have.

3. There originally was to be NO Bill of Rights - our Constitution itself was meant TO BE the Bill of Rights. The things listed in our Bill of Rights were SO obvious to the Founders (and God-given), that they found it completely unnecessary - and it would dangerously imply that what WASN'T listed wasn't a right. Or what WAS listed, was listed because the fed. gov't somehow had the power to take it away - which is definitely NOT the case. See the logic?? Instead, they were overruled, a Bill of Rights exists, and each right listed has been a source of intense major debate for years now. I liked this section of FP #84 (Hamilton): "In this country, the People surrender nothing, and since they retain everything, they have no need for a Bill of Rights."

4. The separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches are very delicate, but each would have enough power (and enough safeguards built into the Constitution) to not take powers from the others. Yet, our leaders skirt these separations and create laws or declare war while calling it something else. Even the judicial branch legislates from the bench, creating "rights" for welfare and abortion, among others.

5. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 - the "necessary and proper" clause. I cringe to think how often this clause is stated as the proof that the fed. gov't can do anything it wants or create any law it wants (ahem, universal health care). This was a clause very narrow in scope and only allowing the gov't to create laws necessary to carry out other laws. I like Beck's analogy of giving someone a gun, but not telling them where the bullets are. You need both gun and bullets to exert force (or in other words, carry out a law). When it comes down to it, this law essentially has no meaning. Its purpose was just to make sure that the government set down in the Constitution would actually happen. That's it.

6. The importance of holding our leaders responsible and making sure they adhere to the same laws we abide by. If they don't pay taxes or feel they're above the law, that's starting to sound like aristocracy, isn't it? Something America desperately wanted to get rid of! FP 57 (Madison) says (I love this): "There is an additional restraint that will prevent the Representatives from becoming oppressive: Any law they make will be just as applicable to themselves and their friends as it is to the rest of society. This has always been considered one of the strongest ties by which men can bind the People and their rulers together...Few governments have provided this example, but all governments degenerate into tyranny without it. If someone asked: "What will keep the House of Rep. from engaging in any sort of legal discrimination in favor of themselves and a particular class of society?" I would answer: the genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws, and above all, the vigilant and courageous spirit that stirs the American People, a spirit that nourishes freedom and is in return nourished by it."

There were so many other great points in the book, but the few above were the ones that really struck me. The Federalist Papers are so relevant to the present, their case being FOR the Constitution back when it's existence hung in the balance, but written with wisdom for today when it's being torn apart. Politicians have figured out how to change the meaning of the language in the Constitution, finding that it's easier than changing the Constitution itself. Patrick Henry said, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Sounds like today. And what's also relevant is that the Papers keep this insight in mind ALWAYS: that people are people and politicians are politicians. Checks and safety nets needed to be in place and around every corner for this new government to work. I'll leave you this novel-length review (sorry!) with some quotes I really liked.

FP #62 (Madison): "...A lack of confidence in the government prevents every useful, beneficial, or entrepreneurial undertaking from ever taking place...Unstable government's most disastrous effect is its negative effect on the attachment and reverence the People have for their political system, a system that not only exhibits signs of weakness, but also disappoints their deeply held hopes. Just like an individual, no government can be respected for very long without being respectable, nor respectable without possessing a certain amount of order and stability."

"The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them." -Alexander Hamilton
(Do we know our rights?? Can we defend them??)

To the people of the State of New York: "Let us also be mindful that the cause of freedom greatly depends on the use we make of the singular opportunities we enjoy of governing ourselves wisely;...If the people of our nation, instead of consenting to be governed by laws of their own making, and rulers of their own choosing, should let licentiousness, disorder, and confusion reign over them, the minds of men everywhere will insensibly become alienated from republican forms, and prepared to prefer and acquiesce in governments which, though less friendly to liberty, afford more peace and security. Receive this address with the same candor with which it is written; and may the spirit of wisdom and patriotism direct and distinguish your councils and conduct." -John Jay

[Michael Austin · Rating 1 out of 5]

It is difficult to convey just how bad this version of the Federalist Papers is to anyone who has not struggled with the original, majestic language of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay and spent hours digesting their carefully crafted arguments. Anybody who has, however, will be appalled at the ineptness of this translation, the shallowness of the commentary, and the almost pathological historical ignorance that Mr. Beck and Mr. Charles have brought to one of our nation's great literary and philosophical treasures.

I generally think that people should read things like the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence in their original versions. The language of the late eighteenth century is not as different from the language of today as Beck protests in his introduction, and we owe it to the Founders we revere to read what they had to say in their own words. There are many good editions of the Federalist Papers that provide glosses and footnotes for the more difficult words and passages--the occasional antiquated usage should not be a bar to reading America's original founding documents.

However, if one is going to "revise" the words of the Founders into a youth-friendly, 21st century idiom, one had better know something about the language of the time period and the context of the documents. The Mary Webster edition in fact does this and presents an updated version of the papers that is as accurate and as informed as a careful scholar can make them.

Glenn Beck, and his collaborator, Joshua Charles, on the other hand, simply are not up to the task that they set for themselves in revising this work.

I have seen enough of Mr. Beck that I did not come to the book with very high expectations. I was fairly sure, for example, that the introductory material and the commentary would wrench Publius's words out of context and apply them simplistically to every plank of the Modern Tea Party's platform--which, in fact, it does. I also suspected that some of the original papers that did not conform to this agenda would be eliminated entirely--which, in fact, they were (the book updates only 33 of the 85 Federalist Papers, and Hamilton's vital #30 and #31, which argue for virtually unlimited taxation power for the federal government, are nowhere to be found). All of this I was prepared for.

Nothing, however, could have prepared me for the utter ineptness of the "translation" itself. As a professional scholar of the 18th century (albeit the British 18th century), I have had some exposure to the way that people wrote 230 years ago. And as an avid admirer, and frequent reader of the Federalist Papers, I have put a lot of effort into understanding and appreciating what its three authors meant to say. When I read this purportedly accurate updating of the language, I was appalled. Nearly every page contains at least one major paraphrasing error, sometimes altering, and sometimes completely reversing the intent of the original. Substitutions are made for perfectly good English words for no apparent reason. And important phrases, sentences, and whole paragraphs simply disappear in the updating exercise.

A catalog of the clear paraphrasing errors of this translation would require many pages, but I can't resist sharing a few. First, compare the following rather important passage from Hamilton's Federalist #1, first in the original and then in the updated version:

ORIGINAL: A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

BECK: Dangerous ambition often lurks more in those who have excessive enthusiasm for the rights of the People than those who believe in a firm and efficient government. History proves that the former more often leads to tyranny than the latter, and that the people who have trampled on the liberties of a republic often began their campaigns by being overly concerned with the rights of the People and helping to end tyranny.

Notice what the updater has done with the final part of this passage. Hamilton was launching an all-out attack on the "Anti-Federalists" (Patrick Henry, George Mason, George Clinton, etc.), who had been arguing that a strong federal government would abrogate the rights of the people. Hamilton said that, historically, despotic rulers start out as demagogues and end up as tyrants. In the translation, however, demagoguery is excised entirely from the text (hmm, wonder why) and Hamilton's "ending tyrants," by which he very clearly means "ending up tyrants" becomes "helping to end tyranny." I doubt if there could be a more consequential mistake in representing the opinions of the Founding Fathers than confusing "helping to end tyranny" with "ending up a tyrant.

My second illustration comes from the opening passage of Madison's magisterial Federalist #10, perhaps the best known of all the Federalist Papers:

ORIGINAL: Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it.

BECK: None of the benefits that a well-constructed Union brings deserves to be considered more than its tendency to decrease and control the violence that typically comes with opposing political factions.
The friends of popular government are understandably alarmed by the tendency of the factions within any government to engage in violence. Violence always puts both the character and the fate of the government at risk. If this is the case, then these friends of popular government would be wise to carefully consider a Plan that, far from violating their principles, actually provides a cure for this problem.

The errors here stem from not understanding how Madison used the term "violence of faction," which the updater naively translates as "engage in violence" the way that fifth graders do on the playground after school. Madison, of course, meant nothing of the sort. Rather, he was arguing that factions, or special interest groups, constituted a kind of political violence on the entire body politic. When people combine into factions--he explains in the same introduction--then "the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties" and "measures are . . . decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

One of the major clues that Madison is not talking about physical violence in this essay is that he never brings it up again. He does, though, talk at great length about the metaphorical violence that a permanent majority can inflict on a minority. To reduce his brilliant analysis to a warning against the outbreak of physical violence is to miss the beauty and the importance of what the great man was saying.

In his introduction to this edition, Beck strongly recommends that we do NOT read the original Federalist Papers. "Let's be honest," he says, "they're written in terribly hard-to-read eighteenth-century English, they reference things that most of us have never heard about, and, let's just say it: They seem irrelevant."

A few pages later, however, he launches into a fairly predictable broadside against the liberal elite who don't want you to read the works of the Founding Fathers: "Even today, some people would prefer that you not read the Federalist Papers. Instead they would rather contort Publius's words to serve their own narrow ideological ends."

Exactly.

[Chris Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pretty faithful English-to-... well, English translation of the original Federalist Papers. It does make them easier to read, but I still suggest reading the originals. In any event, the book is pretty good at its task of giving you an insight into what the Framers originally intended when coming up with the Constitution. Here's a hint: It's most likely not what you've been told. Did you know Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights? Do you know why? Do you know what the "necessary and proper" clause actually means?

It's probably because Madison, Jay, and especially Hamilton, were proponents of a strong central government (relatively speaking, which is why you should also read the "Anti-Federalist Papers") that they couldn't see how badly things would have been mangled, or how the Federal government would have swelled this far beyond the constraints the Framers had put in place. Actually, there are more than a few times that "Publius" argued that what we now know has come to pass would never come to pass. My only real gripe is that the Papers aren't presented in order, but instead grouped by subject.

It's well worth reading, and for less than ten bucks, it's affordable. Or hit up someplace like Project Gutenberg and get the original Federalist Papers for free. I suggest both, and suggest these just be the start.

[Allison Anderson Armstrong · Rating 5 out of 5]

Seth and I listened to this book on a road trip right before the election, and we wished that more Americans were aware of this helpful book. It takes many of the federalist papers and makes them easier to understand with modern English writing. Though I may have slept through one chapter, I got the general idea and now understand the original purpose of our government, from which, America has sadly strayed very far.

[Rick Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Tale of Two Becks
Several years ago, I was out and about on a Saturday and happened to turn the radio on to the talk radio station. (I know. I’m somewhat masochistic like that. When I feel I’ve been particularly sinful I may even make myself listen to 15 minutes of Sean Hannity for penance.) The voice that greeted me on the radio was one I was unfamiliar with during my weekday perusals of the station. In fact the person was talking about American history and showing a clear understanding of the motivations and thoughts of the founders and a clarity of expression unusual in the typical Straw-Man-ing, Red Herring-ing, Ad Hominem-ing talk radio hosts. He was also witty and clever, which are plusses in my book. At the commercial, I learned that this man’s name was Glenn Beck. Cut to a few months later. I was in a restaurant and saw on the television a red-faced man in histrionics raving like a lunatic and weeping openly into the camera. “Who is this loser?” I thought. I soon learned, via box at the bottom of the screen, that his name was Glenn Beck as well, which I thought at the time was somewhat odd. You know, odd that there would be two conservative-leaning media personalities with the same name. Sometimes even now I have a hard time convincing myself that radio Glenn Beck and TV Glenn Beck are the same person. Beck can veer from the height of lucidity to the depths of insanity. Fortunately, it is the radio Glenn Beck that shows up for the book The Original Argument.


An Original Idea
The Original Argument is based on a simple premise: all Americans should understand the arguments and ideas that drove our founding fathers to pen the Constitution. It is not enough to know what the Constitution says, but to understand why it says what it says. From personal experience, I can say that I learned in my high school government class all about our bicameral legislation, our balance of powers and the roles of the three branches of government. However, I did not learn a thing about the great debates that set these structures in place and the reasoning behind them. At the school where I teach now, Veritas Press Scholars Academy, students in both the ninth and twelfth grades are expected to read extensively from the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and to be able to discuss the differing perspectives presented. However, I realize that many people never encounter these arguments, and, even if they did, they would be put off by the archaic language. (I would be lying if I said that none of our students are put off by the archaic language.)

This is the premise that makes The Original Argument so intriguing. A selection of the most important Federalist Papers have been translated into modern English in a very faithful way so as to give modern Americans an understandable guide to the thought of our founding fathers. The credit for most of the work in this book goes to a young man named Joshua Charles who actually did the work of translation. However, as the name Joshua Charles is not likely to sell many books, it is Beck’s name that appears on the cover. Beck writes essays at the beginning of each section of the book summarizing a particular aspect of the Federalist Papers and also writes notes on each paper, showing the main ideas and issues dealt with in that particular paper.

The Papers

Overall, the papers are well-selected and arranged and are representative of the thoughts of the writers of the papers. The book is divided into seven sections, covering broadly 1) the vision of the constitution, 2) the delicate balance between a national government (which the federalists were attempting to avoid, by the way) and a confederacy government (which is too weak to accomplish what the authors say a government ought to accomplish), 3) The overall nature of the republic, 4) the balance of powers within the government, 5) the freedoms of the states and people, 6) the rights of the government with regard to taxation, and 7) the specific powers and limitations of the judicial branch of government. Beck’s notes on the papers and his essays are surprisingly nonpartisan, criticizing conservatives and democrats alike for departing from Constitutional principles and co-opting our nation’s history for personal gain. I appreciated his essays, and, even when I disagreed with him, I felt that the issues of debate were made clearer by his explanations.

As far as my thoughts on the papers themselves, I suppose I have to tip my hand here. I am an Anti-Federalist right up there with my Virginian forbear, Patrick Henry. I think the Constitution had and has many weaknesses, and that the writers of the Federalist papers were terribly naïve at many crucial junctures. For example, in paper 41, we read, “It is a fact of our political system that the state governments will always be able to provide complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the Federal government.” Why is this? Because the bulk of the military will always be made up of the state militias. There will never be a standing Federal army! That would be ridiculous!

In paper 44, Madison defends the article giving the federal government “the power to make all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers…” When the anti-Federalists complained that this gave the government too much power, Madison responded with the idea that if we stuck to the Articles of Confederation, then the government would have no power at all. “They could have copied Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which would have prohibited the exercise of any power that was not explicitly given in the Constitution.” Showing how much Rousseauian nonsense Hamilton had imbibed, he argues that changing circumstances require the government to be able to accrue new powers to itself as time changes. Thankfully, the anti-Federalists won this battle and thus the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution were written. Unfortunately, the “proper and necessary” clause has been used by the Federal government time and again to give the government unconstitutional power in spite of the Bill of Rights.

These shortcomings aside, there is a great deal of thought in the Federalist Papers of which the many if not most Americans are ignorant. This ignorance is shown in people who think the Seventeenth Amendment was a good idea or who wish to abolish the Electoral College. This ignorance is even better shown in people who have no idea what the Seventeenth Amendment is and have never heard of the Electoral College.

Summary

I wholeheartedly recommend this book for anyone and everyone as an introduction to the Federalist Papers. I still believe that people should try to read the papers in their original language (after all, they were originally geared to New York farmers, not to some elite intelligentsia). Everyone should understand why our government is structured the way it is and what powers the Federal government actually has under the current Constitution. We need to understand that the American revolutionaries sought to create a nation ruled by laws and not a nation ruled by men like the French during their revolution. We need to understand that certain impediments were intentionally placed in the way of the government to keep it from being too efficient to the detriment of the people.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and would love to see a similar book released based on the Anti-Federalist papers. Until that time though it would be great for everyone to get a copy of The Original Argument for their home library.

5/5 stars

[Rich Hoffman · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was given this book after a speech I was presenting. A person from the audiance left it for me as a gift. It is a wonderful book. I tried to read The Federalist Papers in their raw form and it was difficult. But Josh Charles has made the old language that The Federalist Papers were written with easy to understand in this update of the letters that formed the Constitution of The United States. Since reading this book, I have come to know Josh and he has given my own latest novel a novel his own review.

“Rich Hoffman has very skillfully, and with the obvious storyteller’s touch, expressed some of the great challenges that we face as a society today in a way that anyone can understand and enjoy within the context of a great story. ‘Tail of the Dragon’ will enlighten all who read it, young and old, and I highly recommend it.”

Joshua Charles co-author of the #1 New York Times Best Seller ‘The Original Argument’ with Glenn Beck

I would still give Josh a great review even if he didn't give me such a great blurb, but it helps.

[Gina · Rating 2 out of 5]

So this took me forever to read...i lost interest half-way through and then I picked it up a year later, and this time I finished. Anywho, the actual federalist papers and their modern translation was really interesting. The sections in which Glenn Beck wrote whatever it was he wrote was annoying because of his political opinions about Obama and Bush and blah blah blah. I did not like that he had to write that he didn't like the Congress or the current President. No Mr. Beck, things are a bit different, and so they should have to change. Or maybe I just don't like your dumb conservative views, because they were never based in historical context. And finally, I strongly disliked that he had his name plastered over the front when I know that he didn't write very much of the paper. His name is just the thing that sold the book. To the poor guy whose name is in the inside cover good work on the papers it was very interesting..i hope you got some royalties for the book.

[Justin F · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read Glenn's previous books and listen to his radio show regularly.
So I am pretty familiar with his opinions.

While the introduction has some opinion in it, the translations of the Articles themselves had no opinion that I could discern.

After reading a translation from the book, I went and read the actual Article from the Library of Congress website: [...]

The translations made the real versions accessible and from what I could tell, the translations were as accurate as possible while updating the language to the language of today.

Great job Josh for all the hard work in translating (must have taken a long time).

I would recommend this to anyone who wants to understand the arguments behind our Constitution, but doesn't have the time to decode the original papers themselves.

Well worth the few bucks it sells for.

[Laurie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading the revised Papers themselves, but ultimately started skipping over Beck's commentary, as I'd rather just read the material and come to my own conclusions. I think it would be good to read this with the original document open next to it, so you can get a feel for the original language as well. I wish the person who did the actual revision of the Papers would just publish all of his work instead of just the few Beck chose and without the commentary. I would much rather make the decision myself of which ones are important or not important to read.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should be a very readable reinterpretation of what I have found to be dry, incomprehensible material. I stand in awe of anyone who can master The Federalist, and this places it within reach. I read only the Kindle sample edition, which, sadly, is probably only the very readable introduction to the book. It does not present any specific articles. I have read most of the book, then surrendered it to the library whence it came.

[Jeffrey · Rating 2 out of 5]

Quick (and inadequate) history lesson before I start off the review proper: when the colonies rebelled and formed these United States, they adopted the Articles of Confederation as the supreme law of the land, but it was decidedly imperfect (the newly created federal government couldn’t even levy taxes, so it was doomed to be totally ineffectual). After the war was won, a continental congress was convened to try to come up with some recommendations to fix it. Instead, the group recommended tossing the whole thing and adopting The Constitution, a document that established a much stronger central government than conceived in the Articles. The states would have to vote on whether or not to adopt the constitution (and thereby get rid of the Articles) and it was no sure thing that this would happen. Alexander Hamilton (who did most of the heavy lifting), John Jay, and James Madison wrote a bunch of essays (published anonymously) urging Americans (but specifically New Yorkers as this was a sort of swing state) to adopt the constitution.

Now, we have this 2011 book trying to make the antiquated language of the Federalist Papers and make the concepts digestible for a modern audience. The concept was conceived by a college music major from a christian fraternity and the book came to be after he teamed up with his hero, conservative talking head Glenn Beck.

I gotta be honest: I didn’t realize who wrote this thing when I found it at a library book sale. I didn’t get this for a hate read like I have with the Pete Hegseth books. I got it because I wanted to learn more about the federalist papers. I came into this with the best intentions.

So the vast majority of this book is just the Federalist papers summarized in modern English to be more readable. Each paper has a one page intro that says what the Beck team thinks the main take away is and how he thinks we should connect the concepts to present day America. I generally disagreed with those connections but usually didn’t find them to be wholly misrepresentative of the documents.

All of the writings that make up the Federalist Papers sing the praises of a central government, usually in regard to how it helps in defense to have a single centralized military and how it helps trade and foreign relationships. It’s neat to think there was a time when that was in question, but it all feels pretty clear now.

It feels like the authors took a lazy route - just rewriting these articles in modern English with those brief snippets of what they think it means and why it’s important. This would have been a much more compelling book if it better dive into the historical context of the arguments and made an effort to really explain the political tug of war going on at the time between the federalists and anti-federalists.

It feels like a worthwhile endeavor to understand the arguments for the constitution made at the time, especially as it clarifies how our federal government was intended to function and the concerns people had at the time. It’s also interesting to consider how some of these things have changed in the past two hundred ish years.

It’s very interesting to read through (primarily) Hamilton’s defense of a federal government because it will largely subjugated by the power of the states. Beck is right that this has really been flipped on its head, but I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing. Aside from Texas, the states and the people that inhabit them don’t seem to have the same sense of identity though statehood as they did as they were transitioning from independent colonies. Also, the reasons a strong federal government seemed so problematic now are largely assuaged by the ease through which we can travel and communicate. Also: there are goals we’ve had in the past two hundred years that could never have been accomplished by the states alone that are outside the powers initially contemplated for a federal government (I’m specifically thinking of space exploration - can you imagine if instead of NASA, it was just up to Rhode Island to land on the moon?).

The book selectively presently many of the federalist papers and includes framing of each section by Beck (or his ghost writers), which leaves one to wonder how much it has been tailored to represent his own bias. It’s clear that Hamilton and his pals championed the power of state governments in ways that seem pretty far off from the way our federal and state governments interact today, but given the author one ha to wonder how these ideas have been finessed. It would be worthwhile, obviously, to read the original source in its entirety, but I don’t know that I’ll ever be so inclined.

Honestly, you ought to take my review with a grain of salt. I found myself zoning out for paragraphs at a time. That might be a reflection on the authors but it might just as well be a reflection on me as a reader.

[Rex Cluff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love this volume. Beck takes the Federalist letters from our founding fathers and makes them a bit more readable, updates the language, and shows how far astray we have gone as a nation from those founding principles. As I read, I saw many of the same things that Trump and Reagan both have fought to correct in our government. Reagan made some progress along those lines but they were quickly reversed by his successors. Trump is trying to make further corrections along the Federalist lines but is being blocked, insomuch as possible, by his detractors. I don't know where all of this will lead, but I know that we would be better off as a people and as a nation if we would return to the Federalist principles as outlined in this book.

[Marsha Ronquist · Rating 4 out of 5]

Learning about our founding

I did learn many things, yet there is still much I do not totally understand. I think one could spend several years reading and analyzing the words in the federalist and anti federalist letters and still not be able to understand the complexity of the documents

[Michael K. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Far easier to understand than the old English it was written in! Excellent book to read!

[Troy Elias · Rating 4 out of 5]

The content is excellent but even with my love of history it was hard to press through.

[Paul Gover · Rating 5 out of 5]

Should be a must read in all schools and for all Americans

[Ethan Nunn · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very well written book and very well translated with good introductions before each section.

[Connor Redding · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good book. Would recommend for anyone trying to learn about some of the U.S.A.'s history

[Terri · Rating 5 out of 5]

I believe that this is an essential reference book for all Americans. In our current times, the intent of the Founders of our nation as expressed by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay is even more important than the original purpose of the Federalist Papers. In "translating" the 18th century prose of the Papers, the authors have given us a clear understnding of what the Constitution strove to establish as well as a clear indication of the incredible drift away from its principles we have seen in recent years. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were brilliant men, steeped in learning and the political thought of their time. Their principles and methods of protecting the liberty of the people are even more relevant today, despite the "living Constitution" rhetoric of those who wish to "totally transform" our nation. It is clear to me, as I believe it will be claer to other readers, that current attempts by political pundits and elected individuals to undermine our Constitution is the result of a desire to hold the liberty of the individual hostage to the failed ideal of "wealth re-distribution" and "social justice" of Marxist/Scialist doctrine. If we cannot be responsible for controlling our individual selves without the intervention of government and draconian laws and regulations, then we are incapable of ruling ourselves as a nation. Hamilton, Jay, and Madison believed in the ability of human beings to rise above their flaws without attempting to eliminate their flaws by legislation and regulation. They were practical men who understood that humanity is flawed and did their best to provide "check and balance" safeguards to minimize the effects of those flaws in government.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Love Glenn Beck, or hate him, this is an interesting idea. Why not take the Federalist Papers, translate them into modern language and make them more accessible to modern Americans?

The book is actually laid out into 7 parts, all with a different topic and then the Papers that match that topic are included. The introduction of each part contextualizes the papers with modern events and every paper has a brief summary statement and then some modern application as well. Not every single one of the papers are there, just the most important ones.

It was an interesting experience for me, I have a BA in Political Science and a minor in history, but somehow the Federalist Papers were never required reading in my degree program (but I did get some selections from The Communist Manifesto). Imagine that! More proof that college has little interest in truly educating Americans about their history, a lot of it is driven by a political agenda. Someday I hope to read the real papers, but until that happens I'm glad to have read this book. This is the one pause that I have with this text, it is a translation, and that leaves one to wonder, did they (meaning Beck and the KU Grad Josh Charles that helped with this work) translate wrong. I can't say one way or another, but my experience with The Federalist Papers is more than it was before and that is a result of this text. And that is why this book matters. If it opens open more Americans to the works of the era of the founding of this nation, then we are all better for it, because American history is not being taught effectively in modern America.

[Ger · Rating 4 out of 5]

There has been a huge gap in the education of the American people. The issues that we argue about today were trashed about when the Constitution was presented to our ancestors. So few have any sense of how well the Founder Fathers did their homework. They intended that Americans be a free people who would govern themselves. They had a healthy fear of government power and made a major effort to curb it. They would be appalled to learn that so many Americans today want the government to take the earnings from other Americans and give them a benefit.

The Federalist Papers are a bit difficult to wade through. Even this work, which is much shorter and written in more easily understood language, is not an easy read. But we all should be familiar with the original arguments. We should know how the foundation laid by these inspired "dead white men" made it possible for us to live in unparalleled wealth and liberty.

[KR · Rating 5 out of 5]

After hearing the arguments for why the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in the way that they did, it is easy to see why our government seems to be having so many problems. It's also clear how different our current government is from what the Founders intended. If Americans want to fix America, they should start by understanding the reasons and thoughts behind the drafting of the Constitution and the original structure of government that was laid out.

Believe it or not, the Founding Fathers had very specific reasons for why they wrote the Constitution in the way that they did, and many of the problems we're having are a result from not heeding the fears expressed in the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers in any compilation should be read by every American who wants to gain a better understanding of how our government should be fixed.

[Jenalyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

What was the original argument for the Constitution? In 1787-88, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote 85 papers to give citizens a chance to hear the best arguments in support of it. Joshua Charles and Glenn Beck have "translated" 33 of the 85 Federalist Papers into contemporary English so that we, the people, can understand the theories behind the principles of government upon which our country is based. The original "versions" are very hard to read for the average person. I am excited that they have been put into a more readable format. All politicians should read the Federalist Papers as well as abide by the Constitution of the United States! We, as citizens of this great country, should be very familiar with its Constitution.
(This would have been 5 stars for me, but it was still pretty hard for me to read.)

[Rebecca Powers · Rating 5 out of 5]

For someone like me who is a devout lover of our nation's Constitution, this book was bittersweet. It renewed my love for the basic fundamental rights this country was originally founded upon. I could taste the love and conviction our forefathers had when writing the Federalist Papers and, regrettably, how careless and perverted we have been as a result of "great lawyering." Laws have been interpreted and reinterpreted to the point our most basic rights and principles are no longer recognizable. All this in a mere 200 years! I wish every high schooler and U.S. Citizen was required to read this book as it does a great job balancing the argument for the Constitution both then and now. Without having the basic understanding of how this great nation was formed you simply cannot appreciate what it means to be truly American.

[Matt Randall · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't know if you ever had to read any of the federalist papers in high school or college. I did and I can tell you that it takes a bit of patience because they are written in how they spoke back then. They made reference to events that were lost in history and if you don't understand those points of view, they can be really confusing.
Then a college student decided to rewrite them in a modern tongue. Rather then leaving them in numerical order he grouped them based on subject matter and included a couple paragraphs before that group to help with the historical background and context. What you are left with is a series of political essays in a modern understanding of why they wrote the Constitution they way our forefathers did.

[John Roskelley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I echo the reviews of several others, especially Julie. This type of plain(er) English reading should be mandatory in school classes we used to call Civics. I only wish that the originator of the idea to translate the original texts of the Federalist Papers into language more in use today had convinced Glenn Beck to include all of the published papers penned by the three men collectively known as Publius in this work. Perhaps his translation is available--I'd surely welcome it as an addition to my library.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

You'll walk away with a better understanding of the roots of our Federalist system, why we have the electoral college, what is the 17th ammendment?, how the founders put great emphasis on checks and balances between the branches of government (some which have been usurped today). The commentary between the chapters of actual interpreted Federalist papers definitely is from a strict constitutionalist perspective, but regardless of your leaning, you can learn something from this book.

[Chad · Rating 3 out of 5]

I expected a lot more out if this book. It reads like a manuscript of a non interactive college lecture. There was lots of interesting information, but surrounded by a lot of filler material that was very dry.

Overall, I love reading about the birth of the nation. I love trying to understand it on a deeper level. I had high hopes of really getting into the federalist papers. This book does dig deep, and helps the reader to understand, just does so on a very boring plane.