# Federalist No. 44

* This article is part of a series aboutJames Madison
Personal
Slavery
Belle Grove
Montpelier
Pacificus-Helvidius Debates
Father of the Constitution
Virginia Constitution
1786 Annapolis Convention
1787 Constitutional Convention
Virginia Plan
Constitution of the United States
Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
Virginia Ratifying Convention
United States Bill of Rights
27th amendment
Constitution drafting and ratification timeline
Tariff of 1789
The Federalist Papers
10
14
18
19
20
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
62
63
4th President of the United States
Presidency
Inaugurations
first
second
Tenure
Tecumseh's War
Battle of Tippecanoe
War of 1812
origins
Henry letters
Burning of Washington
The Octagon House
Treaty of Ghent
Seven Buildings residence
results
Second Barbary War
Era of Good Feelings
Second Bank of the United States
State of the Union Addresses
1810
1814
1815
1816
Cabinet
Federal judiciary appointments
Electoral history
1788–89 House of Representatives
1789 Virginia's 5th congressional district
1799 Virginia gubernatorial
1808 presidential
1812 presidential
Legacy
Memorials
Museum
Memorial Fellowship Foundation
Center for Free Speech
The Papers
Bibliography
Cognitive Madisonianism
Madisonian model :
vte :
Federalist No. 44 is an essay by James Madison, the forty-fourth of The Federalist Papers. It was first published by The New York Packet on January 25, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. This essay addresses the Constitution's limitation of the power of individual states, something strongly decried by the Anti-Federalists, who sought a greater degree of sovereignty for the states. It is titled "Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States".

## Overview

In this essay, Madison justifies many parts of the Constitution, specifically those sections which limit the powers of the states, give Congress full authority to execute its powers and establish the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
His discussion begins with article 1, section 10 (which limits the powers of individual states), wherein he justifies the outlawing of state sponsored privateering as consistent with not allowing states to conduct their own foreign policy, which could lead to great mischief.
He then expounds upon why states should not be allowed to mint their own currencies or issue paper money, saying that multiple currencies would cause confusion and discrepancies, hurt citizens and fuel animosity between the states. He condemns the state issuance of paper money by citing the problems caused by this after the peace in 1783 (paper money issued by the states led to runaway inflation).
Madison vigorously defends the outlawing of bills of attainder, ex post facto laws and laws impairing the obligations of contracts. He insists that such laws would contradict basic principles of sound legislation, and of the social compact itself by allowing a capricious congress to remove basic individual rights and security.
Madison then argues at length for the Necessary and Proper Clause, noting that no part of the constitution had come under more attack. He states flatly that the clause is "invulnerable" and that without it the constitution would be a "dead letter." He says that the Constitution might have listed or enumerated those necessary and proper powers or attempted to list those that were expressly not necessary and proper, but argues that either exercise would have been futile in that no list could ever fully take into account all of the nation's present and future concerns.
He responds to critics who feared that the clause would allow the government to overstep its powers that the people would have the same redress to this as to any occasion on which the legislature abused its powers: the balance of the executive and legislative branches, and the potential to remove the offending legislators via the ballot box.
Madison similarly defends the supremacy clause as vital to the functioning of the nation. He notes that state legislatures were invested with all powers not specifically defined in the constitution, but also said that having the federal government subservient to various state constitutions would be an inversion of the principles of government, comparing it to having the brain subservient to limbs of the body.
Finally he speaks to the importance of having both state and federal legislators and judicial officers swear an oath to the constitution, noting that the federal government is dependent upon the states to carry out policy