O. Madison believed there are clearly discernible principles of “justice and the general good,” and for the government to function according to those principles, factions must be controlled. The majority must not be permitted to trample the rights of the minority. The experience of mankind had shown “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and over bearing majority (No. 10).” Thus, the structural protections in the new constitution were designed to prevent the malevolent operations of “an interested and over bearing majority.” Madison argues that by creating a larger electorate, Americans would create a situation where more “fit characters” would be able to run for office, and it would be more difficult for “unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried.” Ultimately, however, Madison puts his trust in the wisdom and virtue of the American people themselves, when he expresses his hope that “the suffrages of the people being more free, [they] will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters (No. 10).”

P. The ideas then, of a large republic; of dual state and federal sovereignty; of separation of powers and checks and balances; in short, of the entire structure of the Constitution itself, are the guarantees of the political rights of the American people. Critics of the Constitution however, were skeptical. They believed the Constitution was deeply flawed because in its original form it contained no bill of rights. There were no express guarantees of popular freedoms such as freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. It is those popular freedoms that we usually think as constituting political freedom, but this was not the vision of the Federalist Papers authors. It is important to understand why some proponents of the Constitution, including Hamilton, thought the absence of such a bill of rights was one of the strengths and not one of the weaknesses of the proposed national government. Hamilton addresses this issue in No. 84.