United States · Ratification essays
Boston Public Library’s two-volume 1788 M’Lean edition, preserved in one scan. Checked passages connect six essays to constitutional arguments by Alito, Scalia, and Bork, while distinguishing the later editions they cited.
1788 historical text available; cited later editions unchecked. Collection target: First collected edition (1788), Volumes I and II bound together
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay · First collected edition · 1788
Boston Public Library, Rare Books Department, G.356.16; digitized by the Internet Archive with Boston Public Library sponsorship. Both numbered volumes are present; the repository reports two missing blank leaves, and the copy has localized damage. The 1788 facsimile supplies a historical comparison; it does not verify Rossiter’s 1961 or Ford’s 1898 pagination or editorial text. Both volumes share a single unchanged PDF; volume-prefixed page labels distinguish their repeated page numbers. The repository reports two missing blank leaves. Small holes, weak print, show-through, and marks affect portions of the copy. Volume II page 256 is physically misprinted 156. The reader labels its sequential position and retains the unchanged page image. In Finzer, the checked transcription’s wording differs from the historical page, and the display-clause holding was later reversed.
Open reader → Download this PDF
Samuel A. Alito Jr. · Opinion of the Court, Part III-A
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 769 (2010).
Alito cites No. 46 in support of the Federalists’ argument that the Constitution’s limited federal powers protected the right to arms. Madison’s 1788 discussion joins an armed population with state governments and a locally officered militia as safeguards against federal military domination. This link supplies the historical text in the 1788 edition; Alito cited Rossiter’s 1961 edition.
Antonin Scalia · Opinion of the Court
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 910–15 & n.9 (1997).
Scalia addresses Hamilton’s statements that state magistrates could enforce federal law and that state institutions would become auxiliary to the national government. He reads them as consistent with voluntary assistance and a duty not to obstruct federal law, while rejecting Souter’s broader reading. The opinion treats this evidence as contested. The linked scan is the 1788 edition; Scalia cited Rossiter’s 1961 edition.
Antonin Scalia · Opinion of the Court
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 914–15 & n.8 (1997).
Scalia reads Madison’s examples of state officers’ essential role as duties imposed by the Constitution itself, including conducting federal elections. He uses that distinction to answer the argument that Congress could require state officers to administer federal statutes. The majority cites Rossiter’s 1961 edition at page 287; this link opens the corresponding 1788 passage.
Antonin Scalia · Opinion of the Court
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 922 (1997).
Scalia invokes Madison’s account of liberty protected by the division between federal and state governments, followed by the separation of powers within each government. He connects that structure to the objection to federal control of state executive officers. The 1788 text continues into a separate discussion of majority oppression; the link does not verify Rossiter’s 1961 pagination.
Robert H. Bork · Scholarly article
Bork uses No. 43 to argue that the Guarantee Clause permits different forms of representative government and does not itself yield a rigid one-person, one-vote rule. The historical passage says states may choose other republican forms while retaining the federal guarantee, but may not exchange them for antirepublican constitutions. Bork specifies no edition; the linked copy is the 1788 printing.
Robert H. Bork · Opinion for the court
Finzer v. Barry, 798 F.2d 1450, 1457 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Bork cites Jay’s argument that a national government would better preserve peace by observing international obligations. The 1788 page prints “laws of nations”; the checked Finzer transcription uses “law of nations.” The cited Ford 1898 edition remains unchecked. Finzer’s display-clause judgment was later reversed in Boos v. Barry; the narrowly construed congregation clause survived.
Cite an individual paper by number and author; the prepared passage citations identify the 1788 edition consulted.
Both volumes are in one source PDF. Printed-page lookup labels use volume:page; that navigation prefix must not be inserted into a pinpoint after a citation that already states the volume.
The essays appeared under the collective pseudonym Publius. Attribution of each checked essay follows the citing writer and the historical source context; the 1788 title pages do not list individual authors.