In Federalist no. 78 Hamilton explains the powers and duties of the judiciary department as developed in Article III of the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution is very vague on the structure of the federal courts. Hamilton had to convince Americans that the federal courts would not run amok. He presented that the federal courts would not have unlimited power but that they would play a vital role in the constitutional government. Hamilton limited judiciary power by defining it as a text-bound interpretative power. (R.B Bernstein) This essay was intended to endorse as well as interpret the Constitution.
Hamilton approaches the people through this letter by pin pointing several key issues of worry and using his extensive knowledge and background to convince a new nation that they should see in favor of a new Constitution.
Hamilton is backing the judiciary branch as set up in the Constitution. He reiterates what is stated in Article III Section 1 of the Constitution that “all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior;” (Hamilton.Jay.Madison 99-100) and that he believes it to be “one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government.” (Hamilton.Jay.Madison 100)
Hamilton uses fears of past despotism in monarchies and encroachments in representative bodies to persuade people to see that this essential law of good behavior “is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” (Hamilton.Jay.Madison 100)
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...
... middle of paper ...
... “inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice”? (Hamilton.Jay.Madison 105) With an end reminding us of the tough qualifications judicial offices must have met to get into office. “Hence it is that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the station of judges.” (Hamilton.Jay.Madison 106)
In Federalist no. 78 Hamilton takes what is in the Constitution and elaborates it so that the common man feels compelled to believe what is being said. Hamilton uses a sense of fear but fear in the everyday sense. “As no man can be sure that he may not tomorrow be the victim of a spirit of injustice” (Hamilton.Jay.Madison 105) Hamilton does an excellent job of wrapping the box and tying a nice little bow on the top.
Many speeches have shaped the nation we live in today. Patrick Henry’s “Speech in the Virginia Convention” and Benjamin Franklin’s “Speech in the Convention” are two of the most prominent speeches that have assisted in the forging of our new nation. The “Speech in the Virginia Convention” serves to encourage those that listened to take arms against the British and fight the injustice being done to them. The “Speech in the Convention” admits to the imperfections of the Constitution but supports its ultimate purpose. Both Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin believe leaders must do away with compromise and lead when it’s best for the people as a whole. However, Patrick discourages any future compromise, while Benjamin Franklin feels that future
This essay was the sixth essay in support of the U.S Constitution and continued to provide undisputed reasoning for the ratification of the Constitution. The success of the previous five essays, allowed for the continues path of credibility. Within his writings, he remained consistent in his logic and structure, providing the base structure of his argument, providing historical facts, and then ties the two together. Hamilton additionally provides a quote at the end of Federalist Paper No 6, only referring to the author as “an Intelligent writer expresses himself on this subject” (qtd in Hamilton). The following quote summarizes Hamilton’s points and need for action, concluding that Hamilton has been able to “point out the Evil and suggests the Remedy.” This forces the reader to ignore the person that had been quoted and allows them to understand for themselves what they had read, concluding the same end result.
·Hamilton’s plan to establish a permanent national debt violated the principle of equality among citizens; it seemed to favor the interests of public creditors over those of other Americans. Hamilton’s critics also denounced his proposal for a national band, interpreting it as a dangerous scheme that would give a small, elite group special power to influence the government.
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.
Federalist #78, written by Alexander Hamilton, is an essay to argue for the proposed federal courts, their powers, and means of appointing judges. In the essay, Hamilton claims that the judiciary will be the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution.” He says it will be the least , dangerous because the branch will be the least in abundant use. This implies that the other two branches will be used more. The executive branch not only “dispenses the honors”, but also enforce the laws over the entire country. The legislative branch holds the budget for the country and creates the laws in which the citizens must abide by. The judiciary, he says, will have no power over the executive and legislative branches. He also writes that it cannot move forward the society in wealth and in strength, and cannot resolve any active problems that the country is facing in any circumstances. According to Hamilton, the judiciary could be said to have “neither force nor will, but merely judgment,” and that it must depend on the executive branch, even to make their judgments more effectiv...
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.
“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.
You may think that the Constitution is your security - it is nothing but a piece of paper. You may think that the statutes are your security - they are nothing but words in a book. You may think that elaborate mechanism of government is your security - it is nothing at all, unless you have sound and uncorrupted public opinion to give life to your Constitution, to give vitality to your statutes, to make efficient your government machinery. (Brown)
He states that the government had too many leaders and not enough followers. That the government administrated by too many people who had a different motive on running the state. In addition, Madison agreed to what Hamilton was saying. Therefore, Madison helped Hamilton settle this dilemma. “It has been seen that delinquencies in the members of the Union are its natural and necessary offspring; and that whenever they happen, the only constitutional remedy is a force, and the immediate effect of the use of it, civil war.” (Hamilton) Hamilton father explains why this would be a problem with government and predicts what might happen if it reaches to that point. “To this reasoning, it may perhaps be objected, that if any State should be disaffected to the authority of the Union, it could at any time obstruct the execution of its laws, and bring the matter to the same issue of force, with the necessity of which the opposite scheme is reproached.” (Hamilton) Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote the 18th and 19th Federalist paper. The 18th article spoke about contradicting the argument of anti-federalists that proposed a monarchical rule in America. Madison states that if the anti-federalist and federalist do not collaborate on the rule that they established for the people. They would become like the people in Greek history. “Instead of this obvious policy, Athens and Sparta, inflated with the victories and the glory they had acquired, became first rivals and then enemies; and did each other infinitely more mischief than they had suffered from Xerxes.” Demonstrating a jealous view of power and disorganized fashion. “Their mutual jealousies, fears, hatreds, and injuries ended in the celebrated Peloponnesian war; which itself ended in the ruin and slavery of the Athenians who had begun
Morris, Richard B. Witnesses at the creation Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and the Constitution. New York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1985.
Thesis: Hamilton is arguing for the unity of the executive branch that is provided for in the United States Constitution. He is coming from the federalist side and believes in more power in the branches, the executive one specifically. He argues the benefits for more power, his central argument for unity, the accountability, and defense for his beliefs.
The most important idea James Madison shares in Federalist 10 was that the size of the United States and its variety of interests could be guaranteed stability and justice under the new constitution. When Madison wrote this, accepted opinion among sophisticated politicians was exactly the opposite. His “compound republic,” with its “double security” for the “rights of the people,” has survived for over 200 years (James Madison, Federalist
Hamilton had a strong belief that the Constitution could be interpreted loosely which meant the constitution permitted everything that it did not specifically state or forbid. According to Hamilton, the Constitution gave the Federal Government ‘implied powers’ power to execute what was needed for the county, even if it wasn't stated directly in the Constitution. He backed his argument through his support in the ‘elastic clause’ which was in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. This clause gave flexibility and granted Congress the power to do what was “necessary and proper” for the government to carry out their enumerated powers. Because of the elastic clause, Hamilton said it justified Congress establishing the National Bank. Contrary to Hamilton, Jefferson looked upon the Constitution as a document that should be interpreted literally. If a law wasn’t directly written in the Constitution, it was deemed unconstitutional. Jefferson feared that if the government followed a belief of loose interpretation, they would have too much power and could violate individual and states rights. He also believed that powers that were not given to the Federal government are given to the states under the 10th amendment, which supported his claim that that the Construction should be strictly interpreted. Hamilton and
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
Yet, although Jefferson often showed a strong dislike for the Federalist laws and programs, when Jefferson took the office, he left many of the Federalist programs intact, and except for revoking the exise tax, the Hamiltonian system was mostly left as it was. However, this act of Jefferson’s went against many of the political beliefs held by his party and himself. Jeffersonian philosophy and Hamiltonian philosophy differed greatly in that Jeffersonian philosophy adhered to a weak central government, with most of the power in the hands of the states. It believed that the federal government’s power should be restrained and limited, so that it would no...