Kirjojen hintavertailu – 12 859 828 kirjaa ja 27 kauppaa

Kirjailija

Alexander Hamilton

Kirjat ja teokset yhdessä paikassa: 315 kirjaa, julkaisuja vuosilta 1961–2026, suosituimpiin kuuluu Alexander Hamilton: Adultery and Apology. Vertaile teosten hintoja ja tarkista saatavuus suomalaisista kirjakaupoista.

315 kirjaa

Kirjojen julkaisuvuodet: 1961–2026.

The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers

Alexander Hamilton; James Madison; John Jay; Lawrence Goldman

Oxford University Press
2008
nidottu

Halvin toimitettuna 20,90 €

'A nation without a national government is an awful spectacle.' In the winter of 1787-8 a series of eighty-five essays appeared in the New York press; the purpose of the essays was to persuade the citizens of New York State to ratify the Constitution of the United States. The three authors - Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay - were respectively the first Secretary of the Treasury, the fourth President, and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in American history. Each had played a crucial role in the events of the American Revolution; together they were convinced of the need to weld thirteen disparate and newly-independent states into a union. Their essays make the case for a new and united nation, governed under a written Constitution that endures to this day. The Federalist Papers are an indispensable guide to the intentions of the founding fathers who created the United States, and a canonical text in the development of western political thought. This new edition pays full attention to the classical learning of their authors and the historical examples they deploy. ABOUT THE SERIES: For over 100 years Oxford World's Classics has made available the widest range of literature from around the globe. Each affordable volume reflects Oxford's commitment to scholarship, providing the most accurate text plus a wealth of other valuable features, including expert introductions by leading authorities, helpful notes to clarify the text, up-to-date bibliographies for further study, and much more.
Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794

Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794

Alexander Hamilton; James Madison

Liberty Fund Inc
2007
sidottu
"The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794" matched Hamilton and Madison in the first chapter of an enduring discussion about the proper roles of the executive and legislative branches in the conduct of American foreign policy. Ignited by President Washington's Neutrality Proclamation of 1793, the debate addressed whether Washington had the authority to declare America neutral, despite an early alliance treaty with France. Hamilton argued that Washington's actions were constitutional and that friction between the two branches was an unavoidable, but not harmful, consequence of the separation of powers. Madison countered that Washington's proclamation would introduce "new principles and new constructions" into the Constitution. While the Pacificus-Helvidius debates did not resolve this ongoing constitutional controversy, they did define the grounds upon which this question was to be examined, to this very day.
Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794

Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794

Alexander Hamilton; James Madison

Liberty Fund Inc
2007
nidottu
"The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794" matched Hamilton and Madison in the first chapter of an enduring discussion about the proper roles of the executive and legislative branches in the conduct of American foreign policy. Ignited by President Washington's Neutrality Proclamation of 1793, the debate addressed whether Washington had the authority to declare America neutral, despite an early alliance treaty with France. Hamilton argued that Washington's actions were constitutional and that friction between the two branches was an unavoidable, but not harmful, consequence of the separation of powers. Madison countered that Washington's proclamation would introduce "new principles and new constructions" into the Constitution. While the Pacificus-Helvidius debates did not resolve this ongoing constitutional controversy, they did define the grounds upon which this question was to be examined, to this very day.