More handpicked essays just for you.
Significance of the federalist papers
Essays on principles of federalists & anti-federalists
Economic and political of the federalist papers
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Federalist Papers No. 78 was an essay written by Alexander Hamilton. Like all of the Federalist Papers, it was published under the pseudonym Publius. Federalist No. 78 examines primarily the term of office for judges but in making the case for lifetime appointments it details the responsibilities of the federal courts. In fact, the department of justice as one of the weakest in the separation of the three powers, not with the other two analogies. It has no power, and no property rights and wealth of the society, cannot take any active action. The Justice Department is absolutely cannot be successfully against the other two departments. Therefore should be the requirement is that it can to protect themselves against violations of the other two aspects. It concentrates on the judge and court to defend the …show more content…
independence of the constitution and human rights and protect society from occasional bad tendency influence, and proves that the judge position stability. The most significant argument made in Federalist 78 was all judges appointed by the United States; they can have lifetime term if they have a good behavior. "The provisions of all judges appointed by the United States to remain legitimate behavior" has been highly praised; Hamilton thinks it is the modern government's most valuable innovation. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78:“All judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State. Its propriety having been drawn into question by the adversaries of that plan is no light symptom of the rage for objection, which disorders their imaginations and judgments (Hamilton, Page 2).” They should be appointed in the same way as other federal officers, which had been discussed before. As to tenure, the Constitution proposed that they should hold office "during good behavior," a provision to be discovered in the constitutions of almost all the states. Judges have lifetime term if they have good behavior, if somebody gets in there and they start to post their views over the constitution what do we do, getting rid of a judge is a little bit difficult when it comes to the constitution. So the concern is when they get in there, they will be dominated. Hamilton kind of smooth thing over at the end: “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(Hamilton, Page 8).” There is no power above them, to control any of their decision. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78, he said that: “The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws (Hamilton, Page 2)”. As experience had proved, there was no better way of securing a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the law. To perform its functions well, the judiciary had to remain "truly distinct" from both the legislative and executive branches of the government, and act as a check on both. We need a court to look over the laws are passed by Congress to make sure they pass by constitutions because the judge doesn’t do it who does it. They can’t police themselves. So we need to give him a little of power here. Court independence in limited constitution is the restriction of legislative unauthorized security. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78: “Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former(Hamilton, Page 4).” The author refutes the "jurisdiction over legislative power". When the law and the constitutional conflict as a legislature deputies to the people's court enacted according to the constitution, this represents the will of the people the fundamental law ruling, adhere to the will of the people first, legislative supervision behave within limits of authority, does not mean that justice is higher than that of legislation. The judicial organs as the intermediate agency appointment and the legislature has rationality, legal interpretation is the court proper and peculiar functions, the judiciary should be answerable to the people rather than legislative representation and in conflict with the law according to legal interpretation of the principle is made with the interpretation of the constitution of the original intention of justice. That the court will misinterpret the legislative intent in the conflict in the interpretation of the claims is tantamount to that there should not be established independent of the legislature outside of the judge. The court independence helps to defend the Constitution and human rights.
According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78: “This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community(Hamilton, Page 8).” The influence of public opinion legislation may be affected by the social majority and violate the constitution, at the same time, this kind of undesirable tendency may cause unfair or biased act violations of human rights. So the judge independence is an important consideration to protect society from the tyranny of the majority of people of this kind of undesirable tendency of incidental. A judge determined not only can reduce the harm of such bill has passed, and can contain the legislature
through. All in all, "Federalist Paper 78" author Alexander Hamilton give full play to his political wisdom. In the decentralization of the government, the judiciary power is weakest, and judicial departments should require preservation, from the other two. If the judiciary is weak, will inevitably lead to the other two parties infringes, threat and influence, harm people's universal freedom rights. Therefore, to Increases judges independence and firmness, to maintain justice and security. Having a constitution to protect the judicial branch is necessary.
In Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State Virginia, Query 14 & 18 Jefferson uses the literary technique of compare and contrast as well as rhetorical questions to describe how white people are far more superior to slaves. However, by minimizing the validity of the African peoples beauty and way of life he only shows himself to be ignorant and insecure.As a result, Thomas Jefferson's Query 14 & 18 showcases the psychological disabilities that comes with “whiteness”.
Many complaints focused on the lack of a bill of rights in the Constitution, stating the inalienable rights of an American citizen. In Thomas Jefferson’s Jefferson Writings (Doc. C), he states that no government is entitled to omit such an important part of a country’s makeup. The reason a constitution is made is to protect the rights the people fought for during the Revolution, not limit them. Another concern is the balance of power between social classes and the governmental branches, which was a big issue with the Articles of Confederation. Even with checks in place so no branch of government could become to powerful, there was always a risk. In the “Brutus” and “John DeWitt” papers (Doc. D) it states that this unbalance of power could lead, disastrously, to one group dominating over all others, most likely the aristocrats. Some people, such as Patrick Henry during his Speech to Virginia State Constitutional Ratification Convention (Doc. F) even became heatedly anti-federalist, stating that the Constitution endangered to sovereignty of the states entirely. But even with these various concerns and arguments, the Constitution was ratified by all thirteen states in
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.
Federalist no. 78 is persistent in its sort of justifications of the Constitutions vagueness. The letter claims that the judiciary branch is of the least danger of t...
“It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government.” Alexander Hamilton. When Hamilton said this he was expressing the way he felt about central government. Hamilton and Jefferson both had very different views on government. Hamilton wanted a strong central government and Jefferson wanted all of the power to belong to the states. Alexander Hamilton’s views on government were better for what the United States would become.
The Federalist paper # 68 was written with the intent of explaining the process by which we elect the President of the United States, also the views of the people in regards to the election of the President, as well as the House of Representative’s responsibility in electing the President.
Patrick Henry’s Anti-Federalist argument had a big purpose when it was wrote. It was Henry’s way of talking about his objections to the new Constitution. He listed varies objection to the constitution and stated reasoning behind his objections to make others see his point. Henry was a liberal activist. He wrote his document in first person. The audience for his stated was for the general public. The general public that this would have been in interest to was the government, anti-federalists, the state, and any adult in general.
The men who wrote the American constitution agreed with Thomas Hobbes that humans were naturally evil. Therefore, they agreed that in order to prevent a dictatorship or monarchy, the citizens should have influence in the government. The writers wanted a more ideal constitution, but they realized evil human motives would never change. One of the main goals of the constitution was to create a balanced government that would allow the citizens to prevent each other from being corrupt. The writers wanted to give citizens liberty, but they did not want to give people so much liberty that they would have an uncontrollable amount of power. The writers agreed that a citizen’s influence in government would be proportionate to that individual’s property.
“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself,” are words written by James Madison in The Federalist Papers No. 51. The Federalist Paper No. 51 is one of several documents that compose the Federalist Papers, a series of essays written by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton promoting the ratification of the Constitution. In this particular paper, several principles are used as arguments for ratification. Specifically, a main argument discussed is the means this government would have to self-regulate itself. Following the sentence quoted above is, “A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” The auxiliary precautions Madison refers to is one of the many principles of our government that is still in action today, a system of checks and balances. Such a principle was born from the Constitution as a result of the existence of three branches and their division of powers.
9. Hamilton, Alexander and James Madison, "Federalist Papers: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments," The New York Packet, No. 51, 1788.
James Madison was no stranger to opposition. In publishing an essay referred to today as Federalist Essay No. 10, Madison participated in a persuasive attempt to ratify the Constitution, a document he drafted and for which he is credited as its “Father”. Along with John Jay, who became the United States’ first Supreme Court Chief Justice, and Alexander Hamilton, who became the first Secretary of the Treasury, Madison articulates in his writing the necessity of the Constitution as a remedy for the extant ills of an infant nation recently freed from the grasp of distant monarchical rule. This young nation faltered under the first endeavor of organized government, the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were designed during a period of emerging
The writing of opinions seems reminiscent of James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 10. This particular Federalist deals with the topic of federalism, and the appearance of factions in American politics. Factions, according to these Founding Fathers (as well as the past few tests) are undesirable, but inevitable in a free society. People tend to flock to join people of a like mind on issues as them. When factions arise, the public differentiate themselves based on those topics, leading to more dissention. The only way to “control” these factions are to establish a state of federalism, where different levels of government have authority over the same people in the same province. In this system, the majority vote rules, but the minority has a set of rights that must be taken into account in the final decision made by the government. The releasing of opinions by the justices, both concurring opinions and dissenting opinions, is directly in line with The Federalist No. 10. The majority gains an initial “head start”, as it were, from the initial vote, but the minority still has the right, and ability to change the opinion of the majority. At its most basic, the whole
The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...
The broadway hit play Hamilton, written by Lin Manuel Miranda, is viewed as an educational play about Alexander Hamilton, one of the United States’ founding fathers and the first Secretary of the Treasury. The play captures the spirit of Alexander Hamilton’s ambition, eloquence, and mistakes in a revolutionary format-as revolutionary as Hamilton himself! Combining rap, musical theater, and history, Hamilton is an enthralling and entertaining play that is mostly accurate to the real Alexander Hamilton. The details of Hamilton’s life and relationships that were misrepresented in the play to achieve the theatrical flair.
Robert N. Clinton, ‘Judges Must Make Law: A Realistic Appraisal of the Judicial Function in a Democratic Society’ [1981-1982] 67 Iowa L. Rev. 711 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr67&div=38&g_sent=1&collection=journals accessed 12 February 2012