What is federalist 78 about. Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton) 2022-10-16
What is federalist 78 about Rating:
4,5/10
1390
reviews
Federalist No. 78, also known as "The Judiciary Department," is an essay written by Alexander Hamilton as part of The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers were a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in the late 1780s to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution.
In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton discusses the role and purpose of the judiciary branch of the government. He asserts that the judiciary is an essential component of a well-functioning government and that it should be independent and impartial in order to properly interpret and apply the laws of the land.
Hamilton begins by explaining that the judiciary is responsible for interpreting the laws and constitution of the country, as well as resolving disputes between individuals and between different branches of government. He argues that this role requires the judiciary to be independent and unbiased, as they must be able to make decisions without interference or coercion from other branches of government or outside forces.
Hamilton also discusses the concept of judicial review, which is the power of the judiciary to interpret and evaluate the constitutionality of laws and actions of the other branches of government. He asserts that this power is necessary to ensure that the laws and actions of the government are in line with the constitution and to protect the rights and liberties of the people.
In addition to discussing the role and importance of the judiciary, Hamilton also addresses concerns about the potential abuse of power by the judiciary. He asserts that the judiciary is limited by its own authority and the checks and balances of the other branches of government, and that it is unlikely that the judiciary would abuse its power due to its limited scope of authority and the importance of its reputation and integrity.
Overall, Federalist No. 78 is a defense of the importance and independence of the judiciary branch of government, and a reminder of its role in interpreting and upholding the laws and constitution of the country. It is a crucial document in the history of the United States and continues to be relevant today as a reminder of the role and responsibilities of the judiciary in a democratic society.
Federalist 78: The Court and the Constitution
Summary This section of six chapters deals with the proposed structure of federal courts, their powers and jurisdiction, the method of appointing judges, and related matters. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two…the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. Decision: The Warren Court reached a 6-2 verdict in favor of Baker.
Alexander Hamilton and Federalist 78: The Supreme Court
It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government… …To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. One might say, with some inaccuracy, that it is the essential characteristic of the executive. There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. What does good behavior mean in Federalist 78? Then, he says that judges have lots of demands, which shows that only few men are able to become judges because of their ethical qualities. If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty. The Federalist Papers were published by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to help convince the citizens of New York that ratification of the U.
First, Hamilton says that life tenures frees judges from political pressure that come from the legislature or executive. Correct me if you think I am wrong but I know the courts have become full of judges that rule with an agenda rather than law. This is the basis for saying that the courts are not superior to the legislature even though they can void their laws and that both are inferior to the power of the people. What did Hamilton mean by judicial review in the Constitution? Several scholars believe that the case of Federalist 78. This is something I wish more Americans would grab hold of and understand.
The Federalist Papers Essay 78 Summary and Analysis
There are few people with proficient skills and knowledge in law to make proper decisions, let alone, those with integrity as well. In this picture, law has no concern for political consequences and has little interest in deference; it simply pronounces its best determination of reason. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. The Court has essentially become the Constitution, while precedent and Court rulings take priority over the Constitution itself. A government at the mercy of groups continually plotting its downfall would be in a deplorable situation. This has inspired constitutional designers to try to empower independent courts to check other branches.
Think of it this way. This is the battle against BIG centralized LOCAL government. In 1788, the Constitution of the United States was ratified, creating a federal government with three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Among those who have wished to curtail the Supreme Court's power to invalidate acts of Congress have been Presidents Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin D. What is the purpose of judicial review? The fact that the people have the right to change or abolish their government if it becomes inconsistent with their happiness is not sufficient protection; in the first place, stability requires that such changes be orderly and constitutional.
There is no higher power to appeal to, right? It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. Another issue that Hamilton talks about in this essay is the need for Congress to have the authority to remove judges if they are wrong. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. There is no one case that created judicial review. Simple-She is an originalist, akin to her mentor, Antonin Scalia. Courts cannot declare laws unconstitutional; instead, they must decide whether Congress' actions were lawful.
Judicial Branch is established under Article III of the Constitution. Force we understand, decisions made by the courts can only be enforced by the executive branch. Three: As to The Permanency of Judicial Offices In this next quote, Hamilton reasons why a judge or Justice should have a permanent seat on the bench. Judicial review can also be used to ensure that public bodies comply with their obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. Read also How do you keep potted tulips alive indoors? Therefore, our elected officials treat court rulings as if they are law. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. To argue that the Constitution is not superior to the laws suggest that the representatives of the people are superior to the people and that the Constitution is inferior to the government it gave birth to.
To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. And yet, most Americans treat court rulings as if they hold the force of law… as if they are law. The Supreme Court is a joke. The courts have also used this power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, including laws that discriminate on the basis of race or gender. Being freed from such pressure enables judges to guard against laws that are contrary to the Constitution.
