The essays contained in The Federalist were designed not for the ages—not as an explanation of nationalist views—but as a propaganda document to allay the fears and lull the suspicions of the Antifederal forces. Consequently, these field marshals of the Federalist campaign were concerned to make the Constitution look like a mixed concoction of checks-and-balances and popular representation, when they really desired, and believed that they had, a political system of overriding national power. What is remarkable is the fact that historians and conservative political theorists have seized upon and canonized these campaign pieces as fountains of quasi-divine political wisdom, as hallowed texts to be revered, even as somehow a vital part of American constitutional law.

It's my impression, from outside the US, that the population is still very heavily propagandised to revere the Constitution, when, and I agree with the Antifederalists, its contentious passage meant the betrayal and end of a great experiment in democracy. And it has been downhill ever since for democracy in the USA as it has been increasingly captured by an oligarchy.