2026-08-01 · originalism
Federalist 28: The Original Right of Self-Defense
Hamilton recognized that when representatives betray their constituents, the people retain an original right of self-defense that is paramount to all positive forms of government.
In Federalist No. 28, Alexander Hamilton addressed the possibility that the representatives of the people might betray their trust.
His answer was direct:
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”
Hamilton was not speaking of ordinary criminal self-defense. He was describing the ultimate right of a free people to defend themselves against a government that has turned against them. That right, he said, is original — it precedes the government — and it is paramount to all positive forms of government.
The implication is clear. Constitutions and statutes are positive law. They derive their authority from the people. When those who hold power under that positive law systematically betray the people who authorized it, the people are not left without recourse. The original right of self-defense remains.
This is not a doctrine of perpetual insurrection. It is a recognition of the proper hierarchy of authority in a free society. Positive law binds only so long as it remains within the limits of the compact. When it exceeds those limits and becomes an instrument of betrayal, the prior right reasserts itself.
Hamilton’s statement sits comfortably alongside the Second Amendment. The Amendment protects the practical means by which that original right of self-defense can be exercised. An armed people is the concrete expression of the principle Hamilton articulated: that the ultimate security of liberty does not rest in the goodwill of those who hold office, but in the capacity of the people to defend what is theirs.