Describe the federalist papers and letters from the federal farmer identify their authors and state the principle purpose for which each was written

The Federalists Papers was a series of essays that were written by Hamilton, Madison and John Jay. They wrote those papers to convince the states that did not yet ratify to the Constitution at the time.

The Federal Farmer was a publication written by Richard Henry Lee that was against the Federalist papers, he argued against the ratification of the Constitution. He claimed that the Constitution would destroy the sovereignty of the states.

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

The Federalists Papers were a series of 85 essays written by Federalists John Jay, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, under the synonym of "Publius." Written from October 1787 to April 1788, these documents had the explicit purpose to invite the people of the state of New York to ratify the new Constitution. These essays were published on The New York Packet and the Independent Journal.

Two important pamphlets under the name of "Federal Farmer" were published by antifederalists to state their arguments over the new Constitution. The first was published in November 1787, one month after the publication of the first essay of the Federalist Papers. The Federal Farmer was the pseudonym that was used to sign the papers, and historians considered that they were written by Melancton Smith and Richar Henry.

b) a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the constitution.

explanation:

the conflict of this case originated when james w. mcculloch, a cashier of the baltimore branch of the second bank of the united states that the congress had chartered in 1816, refused to pay a tax imposed by the maryland state.

in the case, the state of maryland appealed that the establishment of a second bank was unconstitutional since the constitution didn't say anything about granting that power to congress. however, the case determined that even if such right wasn't specifically stated in the constitution, it was part of the "implied powers" of the government enunciated in article i, section 8.

the case also eliminated maryland's legislation to impose taxes to a national bank, asserting that even though the states retained the power of taxation, the constitution's laws are supreme and can not be controlled by the states, therefore, if a state law contradicts the constitution, it should be declared illegal.

explanation: