Adopted in 1787, the United States Constitution set the framework for a new nation. Over the course of a decade, the Constitution was continuously amended and encouraged interpretation as enumerated rights left gaps of implied powers for its abiders. In aim of clarifying and refuting opposing arguments, Alexander Hamilton authored a primary source on interpreting the Constitution as he contributed to authoring the Federalist Papers. The Constitutional interpretations of John Jay, John Marshall, and Roger Taney exemplify Alexander Hamilton's adeptness of accurately detailing the relationship among the governmental branches depicted in Federalist 78. In the essay Federalist 78, Hamilton focused attention on the judiciary branch and its role in the balance of power among the three branches of government. In order to avoid an omnipotent or tyrannical government, the Constitution enforces limits on Congress that protect individual liberties; However in order to offer such protection, the courts must be independent. Hamilton expresses in his essay that the duties of the Courts are to interpret the laws and prevent both the legislative and executive branches from exceeding their granted powers. “The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature….The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.” Additionally, Hamilton clarifies that the while the Constitution is both the fundamental and supreme law, the Courts must also place the will of the people ahead of that of the representatives. In July of 1793, President Washington issued a request to the United States first Chief-Justice, John Jay, for an advisory opinion on the constitutional status of his Neutrality ... ... middle of paper ... ...from federal custody. Booth secured a writ of habeas corpus from the Wisconsin Supreme Court and was released from federal custody. The attorney general secured a writ of error from the U.S. Supreme Court against the Wisconsin Court, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to recognize the authority of the federal courts. Taney stated that the Wisconsin Supreme Court had claimed the supremacy of state courts over federal courts and that the states do not hold such power. The Constitution of the United States established the foundation for developing a balance of power among the branches of government while leaving room for interpretation as the nation continued to evolve. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 78 contributed an analysis of the Constitution that was then reflected through the federalist rulings of Chief-Justices John Jay, John Marshall and Roger Taney.
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...
The responsibilities would include managing debt, creating national monetary and fiscal policies, as well as managing the national tensions that lead to crisis. Men like Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and John Adams, were in favor of the Constitution, supported the Bill of Rights and subsequently, a larger more powerful federal government. In their views for support of a federal government they proposed the Constitution and later added the first ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights (Lecture). While framing the Constitution issues taken into consideration were states boundaries, representation quotas and veto rights (Countryman 172). Two main plans were proposed to solve the plethora of issues facing the country – one by James Madison and one by Patterson. The fundamental differences was where the federal government derived their power. Patterson advocated for the federal to obtain their power from the states rather than the people, whereas Madison advocated for the power of the centralized government owing its power directly to the people (Countryman 178). After years back and forth conversations, a three tiered system was created that would ensure the integrity of the system by separation and complete independence from each other, thus listing specified duties and power allotted to the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary powers of the United States
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.
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.
While the government of the United States owes its existence to the contents and careful thought behind the Constitution, some attention must be given to the contributions of a series of essays called the Federalist Papers towards this same institution. Espousing the virtues of equal representation, these documents also promote the ideals of competent representation for the populace and were instrumental in addressing opposition to the ratification of the Constitution during the fledgling years of the United States. With further reflection, the Federalists, as these essays are called, may in turn owe their existence, in terms of their intellectual underpinnings, to the writings of the philosopher and teacher, Aristotle.
On September 17, 1787, the Philadelphia Convention sent their new constitution to the states for ratification. The Federalists highly approved of the Constitution because it allowed for a more central and powerful government that was previously undermined under the Articles of Confederation. The Anti-Federalists, however, didn’t want a powerful central government, but, instead, powerful state governments; in response to the Constitution, many Anti-Federalists began writing essays and creating pamphlets as a means of arguing against it. In retaliation to the Anti-Federalists attempt at getting states to not ratify the Constitution, many Federalists developed a group of essays known as the Federalist Papers, which argued for the ratification of the new law system.
The Independent Journal published the first Federalist essay in 1787, closely following the Constitutional Convention. This was one of 85 essays that were all soon published in support of the Constitution. The essays were all published under the alias name “Publius.” All essays were compiled into a single volume titled The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers is considered a significant illustration of American political philosophy under the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted by the Continental Congress. The Articles set up the first legislative system that unified the thirteen states that battled in the American Revolution. A major theme that was discussed in the essays centers around the idea that the United States could not continue to endure under the Articles of Confederation and the weaknesses that accompany it. The Articles gave states the authority to create their own laws, however they were unsuccessful in creating a strong government. The essay suggested that immediate action be taken to prevent the impending anarchy that would ensue under these Articles.
There were commissions that Thomas Jefferson had not delivered and ordered his Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver them. On the other hand, William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a legal order for Madison to show-case why he should not receive commission. In resolving the case, Chief Justice Marshall answered some questions based on Marbury having...
The debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 revealed bitter controversies on a number of issues that had been developing since the penning of the Constitution. The writers of the document knew that over time the needs of the nation and its people would change, and therefore provided for its amendment. But by not expressly delegating powers to specific organizations, whether the federal government, state governments, or the people themselves, they inadvertently created a major problem in the years to follow: Constitutional interpretation.Shortly after the Constitution's ratification, two distinct camps formed, each believing in opposite manners of interpretation. One group, the Federalists, led by the newly appointed Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, thought that the Constitution should be interpreted very loosely. He claimed that the Constitution contained powers other than those delegated or enumerated. These unspecified powers were implied powers.
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.
Before the adoption of the United States Constitution, the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation. These articles stated that almost every function of the government was chartered by the legislature known as Congress. There was no distinction between legislative or executive powers. This was a major shortcoming in how the United States was governed as many leaders became dissatisfied with how the government was structured by the Articles of Confederation. They felt that the government was too weak to effectively deal with the upcoming challenges. In 1787, an agreement was made by delegates at the Constitutional Convention that a national judiciary needed to be established. This agreement became known as The Constitution of the United States, which explicitly granted certain powers to each of the three branches of the federal government, while reserving other powers exclusively to the states or to the people as individuals. It is, in its own words, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Shmoop Editorial Team).
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
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.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss how Chief Justice John Marshall affected the American Judicial System. The reader will therefore first find a brief biography of John Marshall. Then the paper will explain in detail the origins of the Judicial Power to subsequently...
Even before the Constitution was ratified, strong argument were made by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison in the Federalist Papers urging the inclusion of a federal form of government to replace the failed confederation. In Federalist Paper No. 9 Hamilton states, “This form of government is a convention by which several smaller states agree to become members of a large one, which they intend to form. It is s kind of assemblage of societies that constitutes a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, until they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of a united body” (Usinfo.state.gov). The people of the United States needed a central government that was capable of holding certain powers over the states.