Hamilton said that the judicial branch is the “least dangerous” branch of government; his reason for saying this is because this branch lacks the characteristics that the executive and legislative branches have that makes them dangerous. The judicial branch does not have weapons on its own like the executive and legislative branch have; furthermore, they do not have influence or control over the wealth of the society the way that the other two branches do. The judicial branch depends on the other two branches in order for power, because it lacks the power of its own. The judiciary branch is the seen as the “least dangerous” branch; therefore, it will not be able to attack the way the other two branches can and it cannot defend itself against attacks. The judicial branch is only seen as one that can pass judgment on cases that are either constitutional or unconstitutional, but it cannot act on it; therefore, the reason they are seen as less dangerous and cannot compare to the power that the executive and legislative branch have. They have to hear appeals, …show more content…
hold trials, and review government demeanor in accordance with the Constitution. This branch does not have the most power; therefore, it cannot do very much. Its greatest power is that of judicial review, that is how it checks the other two branches, but other than that, it does not have any strong powers. Hamilton says that the judicial branch must be independent of the other branches because federal judges hold a life term and must have good behavior in order to keep it.
Their long term in office liberates judges from partisan burdens and inhibits attacks on judicial power by the executive and legislative branch. Independence gives the judicial branch the ability to guard the Constitution and the rights of the people against the legislature. That means that he believes that the judicial branch is less likely to abuse a person's as compared to the executive or legislative. He felt that judges should have independence from the sanction of the executive, legislature, and the individuals so they can satisfy the judicial qualities defined in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution offers that federal judges are selected to life term thru good behavior, so the courts can remain independent from the other two
branches. According to Hamilton, the tenacity of the judicial branch is to proclaim all acts contrasting to the obvious meaning of the Constitution null. This is a way to regulate several regulations or procedures, which do not comply with the Constitution to be unlawful. Hamilton also states that they function as a purpose of an intermediary body amidst the public and the legislative branch, to check the legislature's power. It only has the power of judgment and depends on other legislators because of their lack of power. Hamilton supports the judicial selection of appointment by the President and approved by Congress with no endowment for reappointment. The judges hold their offices for life when they have good behavior; therefore, if they did anything illegal, they would be taken out of office and another judge has to be appointed. He supports this because it safeguards a stable, decent, and unrealistic administration of law. He does not think that the judges should be elected because it would make them liable for what the people want. In order to do their jobs, there are not a lot of qualifications, but they must have an extreme knowledge of the law. To be a judge there are no formal requirements but there are informal requirements. These requirements include prior experience meaning that how they rule in cases is known, and has held previous positions. Furthermore, the characteristics that a judge needs to get this job includes determination, they will not quite the job since it is a life term job. Hamilton wants the most qualified and determined to do the job. Judges vote based on ideology and behavioral characteristics; therefore, it is necessary to choose the most qualified.
Exceptions to these rules are often required because of a lack of knowledge of the skills and expertise need to serve in government positions. For example the branches should strive to be independent from the other two branches. With each branch seeking to follow their own agenda rather than being controlled by others as they serve their sentences. Madison then proceeds to address the significant need of constitutional safeguards to prevent the gradual concentration of power. For example “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of man must be connected with the constitutional rights.” This provides us protection from those in the government and those who abuse their power because since we aren’t angels we will abuse power if given the chance and opportunity to. One of the greatest problems the government will face is controlling those they govern and themselves. Thus dependence on the peoples will is the government’s main source of power with other precautions. These precautions include the division of power within each branch to prevent any one branch from becoming unstoppable. However it isn’t possible to ensure that all branches receive equal power of defense. In republican governments, the legislative branch
Checks and balances are all important to the legislative branch which means that the part of the united states government that creates laws, and executive branch e=means that our governments is in charge of making sure that the laws of the united states are obeyed, and the judicial branch means that it's made up of court supremes, circuit, the magistrates and municipal courts, This piece of evidence relates to the argument because in the definition of checks and balances it has all these 3 branches in its definition.
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.
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)
One of the Judicial Branch’s many powers is the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the other branches of governments’ actions are constitutional or not. This power is very important because it is usually the last hope of justice for many cases. This also allows the court to overturn lower courts’ rulings. Cases like Miranda v. Arizona gave Miranda justice for having his rules as a citizen violated. The court evalutes whether any law was broken then makes their ruling. Also, the Weeks v. United States case had to be reviewed by the court because unlawful searches and siezures were conducted by officers. One of the most famous cases involving judicial review was the Plessey v. Ferguson
By taking the oath required, “Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God” (U.S. Code), the federal court judges are then protected by the other branches in the system. The other branches are not to have an influence in the judge’s decision. With the federal court judges being as protected as they are it means that they are free to make any decision they feel is right under the law without worrying about consequences. Which I personally think is fair because the federal court judges have to make decisions that society may not agree with, but it is what is best. Protection allows the judges to have free range of their decisions because it is going to better the society. The federal court judges have nothing to fear, they are safe in their decisions which I
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.
1116). The doctrine of judicial review is consistent with the Constitution due to the judicial independence needed to the commitment of the Constitution in protecting the individual rights of its citizens. Moreover, Governor Burke of North Carolina, recognized that judicial review was the ultimate expression of judicial independence, stating "civil liberty would be deprived of its surest defenses against the most dangerous usurpations, that is the independency of the Judiciary power and its capacity of protecting individuals from the operation of laws unconstitutional and tyrannical, (Gerber, 2008, p. 1124). The civil liberties granted to the citizens would be left defenseless to unconstitutional laws and a political system, where the government attempts to regulate the lives of the citizens. Furthermore, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, asserted judicial review is essential to the preservation of a government of limited powers, (Hamilton, 2008). Concluding, that without judicial review, the rights and privileges granted to the citizens would be lost. Chief Justice Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, stated, “federal statues and laws are supreme only if made in pursuance of the Constitution”, further reinforcing judicial review. For over 200 years, citizens continue to experience the positive impact of the doctrine of judicial review. The power of judicial
Life tenure creates at least three problems. First, it allows bad judges to stay on the bench for an indefinite period of time. Second, life tenure allows all judges, including those judges who were very good at what they did, to stay on the bench even after they are long past doing their best work. Third and finally, life tenure allows justices to “rig the system”, as their productivity and effectiveness drastically decrease, while they wait for a president to nominate their successor who has similar viewpoints to theirs (Lazarus
The Judiciary Branch offers checks and balances to the other branches of government. To both the Legislative and Executive branches, the Judicial Branch holds the power of judicial review. The Judicial branch can also declare existing laws as unconstitutional.
It has been said that the U.S. Constitution is deliberately inefficient because of it forces the other branches to check the powers eliminating one becoming more dominant than the other two. The three branches of government are legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch enacts federal laws on a national level in Congress, which is comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The executive bran...
The legislative, executive, and judicial branches represent the constitutional infrastructure foreseen by the Founding Fathers for our nation 's governing body. Together, they work to maintain a system of lawmaking and administration based on checks and balances, and separation of powers intended to make certain that no individual or embodiment of government ever becomes too controlling. America is governed by a democratic government or a democracy which is a government by the people, in which the power is established in the people themselves. The people then elect representatives who carry out their power in a free electoral system. The United States government’s basic claim is to serve the people and only through a combined effort can we
Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.
One example is the Attorney General’s office was caught spying on reporters, threatening the freedom of the press. This does not necessarily mean that the judicial branch is not sufficiently separated from the executive and judicial branches, but due to the separation of powers, checks and balances can be applied in this situation. Because the judicial branch took actions that violate American citizens’ constitutional rights by threatening the freedom of the press, the executive and legislative branches have the power to prevent the judicial branch from taking such actions again. They have the power to protect the rights of the people, and to protect the abuse of power by one branch of