Abstract
This article contends that the burgeoning literature advancing the thesis that the Constitution's separation of powers is a separation of functions enables us to understand more fully the critique of The Federalist against the first state constitutions. The first state constitutions, I argue, differ from the Constitution insofar as the former rely on "parchment barriers" that require both legislators to exercise a virtuous self-restraint and the people to have a watchful spirit while the latter depends on popular self-restraint in deference to the political process. The theoretical reason for this difference between the first state constitutions and the Constitution lies in the fact that whereas the first state constitutions were designed primarily with the end in view of preventing governmental tyranny, the Constitution is designed both to prevent governmental tyranny and ensure effective government.