From both a scholarly and legal perspective, how did The Federalist Papers come to be regarded as providing authoritative insights on the intent of the framers of the Consitution? How much opposition to this view is there in current scholarly and legal thinking. After viewing this lecture, it seems that the historical justification for giving The Federalist this much credibility is weak.
The book is readily available, the authors are famous, and legal education focuses chiefly on case law. To my mind, this accounts for the outsized fame the book has come to have among legal professionals and journalists. Its repute among historians is far more limited.