In order to correctly analyze these questions we must have the general understanding that throughout the Federalists paper#78, Alexander Hamilton expressed the idea and importance he saw with how the Judicial branch needed to be fully independent from both the executive and legislative branch, in order to protect the public from deficiencies of decision-making by each of those two branches of government. Thus, Hamilton held that in order for the Judicial branch to perform its duties well this independence was needed. As a result, no errors in their judgment can be corrected by any institution or body of government, (Federalist Paper, #78), and in a modern sense you can see this with the supremacy of law, in which states that all acts of government …show more content…
In a modern sense, proper use of Judicial Independence is important because as it says in, "May it Please The Court," on page 74, law is everywhere in modern America. Thus, Americans use law and courts to resolve disputes that are large and small, public and private. Therefore, you can see how Judicial Independence and legal professions in general are important and critical because it can shape and inform relations between individuals and institutions in this country today, as it has for more than 200 years. Therefore when considering Judicial Independence we must understand the critical aspect and importance it represents with regards to adhering to constitutional thought and or …show more content…
Courts truly represent the coercive power of government and their decisions allocate power among the branches of government, distribute wealth among individuals and corporations, and draw boundaries between personal freedom and governmental authority. Thus the judiciary is immensely important because it interprets the law when they decide cases, and the power to interpret the law is the power to make the law, especially in cases in -which there are very few and or no precedent cases to reference or guide them, (May it Please the Court, pg, 4). Therefore, I definitely wouldn't call the Judicial Branch "the least dangerous branch," as Hamilton put it, because they have a final rule on a lot of important issues that rest heavily in public opinions. Hence why court decisions must satisfy public opinion often enough that opponents of a particular decisions will obey it because they acknowledge the legitimacy of the court that made it, (May it Please the Court, pg, 11). Thus courts must reconcile law and politics in order to ensure that citizens will obey the law and that court will remain featured actors in the American political drama. In addition to that, Americans' interest in judicial nominees reflects their growing awareness that courts, make important public policy decisions and that judges' values and personal politics affect the
I Agree… “The Federalist No. 84” and “The Anti-Federalist No.84”, both have their views on what should happen to our government. Whether it is to add a bill of rights or not, but I agree with the writer of “The Federalist No.84” because if the Constitution is adopted, then it will be our Bill of Rights, also based on other countries’ bill of rights then it may argue with a semblance of reason. Because I have read both sides of the discussion, I can see who is wrong and why.
This statement from the passage shows that the Supreme Court is depended on to choose what’s right and what’s wrong for us. Secondly, I believe that the Supreme Court is given too much power because the Judicial branch, which includes the Supreme Court, is envisioned as superior than the others. In
Federalist Paper 69, written by Alexander Hamilton in 1788, addresses the topic of the presidency. Its purpose was to illustrate to the people of New York what the real character of the executive would be. The subject matter and time period of this essay allow for speculation that the people of that time were concerned that ratifying a constitution with a president at the head of government would have been willingly putting themselves beneath a tyrannical ruler, after having recently gained independence from tyrannical King George III. Throughout this essay, Hamilton adamantly stressed the fact that the president would not be likened unto the king of Great Britain, but rather unto the governor of New York. The president would be an elected
In addition, James Madison stated the idea of Checks and Balances and what it will do to the government, “...the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that they may be a check on the other... The three branches should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.” This statement means that each branch should have a different power, so they wouldn’t have any constitutional control over each other. That makes each branch check on the other branches to make sure they are doing everything correctly. One way that the Judicial Branch can check on the Legislative Branch is that when Congress creates laws, the Court can declare laws unconstitutional because some laws might not be a good idea for the people of the country, so the Judicial has the power to take away the possible law.
Sophie Byrne John Ward POLI 100 29 March 2023 Two Week Essay Assignment Week 10 & 11 In "The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review," published in the Yale Law Journal, Jeremy Waldron argues against the concept of judicial review, which is a concept allowing courts to strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional. Waldron argues that this concept undermines democracy and should be replaced by a system of parliamentary sovereignty; where the legislative branch holds the power to determine the final outcome when interpreting the constitution.
There are no power in the system provided to correct their construction, means that if the legislature passed any laws, they have the final authority of saying it is unconstitutional. In addition to, the judges have no laws by saying them doing the wrong thing of taking citizen’s rights. In my viewpoint, the federalist paper support this argument. For example,“ The judiciary...may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgement” The legislative controls the command of the purse, and executive holds the sword of the community. Every Branch of the government should have equal responsibility of ensuring bill that passed into laws that are constitutional.
Without judges that protect the constitution, the travel ban might have still been in effect which would allow President Trump as well as other presidents to sign orders at will without living up to the constitution in full extent. In the words of Goldsmith, “the courts...remain supreme” (Goldsmith, 188). Additionally, agencies within the executive can be a check on the president. For example, when there were numerous reports that came out about Russia meddling in the election to help President Trump win, the Justice Department hired an outside special investigator, Robert Mueller, to find the underlying cause of the situation.
All things considered, Mark Sutherland has brought together a provocative corps of respected scholars and legal thinkers who collectively offer an incisive critique of a judiciary gone awry while they offer constructive solutions for reform. They make it abundantly clear that we the American people do not have to be slaves to the edicts of these black-robed deities. Their adroit assessment of the federal judiciary is intelligent, rooted in a principled esteem for the rule of law and constitutional popular rule, and their solutions are constitutional defensible, practical and tenable. One thing is resoundingly clear, we must stand up to these demigods in block robes that contravene the design of our federal republic and offer outlandish decisions at odds with the will of the vast majority of the people. It is paramount that the American people awaken and voice their discontent to their elected representatives in Congress if we are to abate judicial tyranny.
The United States is a constitutional republic with a representative democracy, the political system consists of three branches of government; Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The Supreme Court established under the Judiciary Act of 1789 is an integral part of America’s political system, which plays an important role in the checks and balances between the three branches of Government. The Supreme Court’s role in checks and balances was established following the case of Marbury vs. Madison, when the Supreme Court was granted the ability to perform Judicial Review. Over the last two centuries the Supreme Court has further evolved by becoming more involved with civil liberties and individual rights, as well as by changing the way the constitution
Unlike the other two branches of government, the judicial branch does not have very well-defined powers under the Constitution. While the Constitution established a Supreme Court and gave it “original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party” and appellate jurisdiction in all other cases, the Supreme Court was not viewed as an important body (US Const. art. III, sec. 2). Over time, however, the Supreme Court has evolved into a powerful government entity primarily through judicial review, the “power of a court to declare acts of governmental bodies contrary to the Constitution null and void” (Neubauer, 492).
Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.
The judiciary has become more and more involved in policy making in recent years, and many citizens and politicians ask how far should judges go interpreting a law. Should they really have the power to impose laws that go against the representatives, that have been elected by the people? Those are the questions that get asked frequently and the constitution is silent on the subject. The two main theories preval are the originalism and living constitution theories. To sum it up, the originalism theory states ¨the constitution should be interpreted in a way that it would have been interpreted when it was written¨, whereas living constitution theory states that ¨the framers made the constitution flexible for interpretation¨. Both theories have a solid foundation for their belief, with one stating that laws the judiciary makes, drifts too far away from what the framers wanted, and the other theory states that as times change so should the laws.
Judicial restraint and judicial activism are two different approaches to interpreting and applying the law by judges in a court of law. While judicial restraint emphasizes the need for judges to limit their decisions and avoid interfering with other branches of government, judicial activism emphasizes the importance of judges taking an active role in shaping public policy and ensuring that the Constitution is being upheld. In this essay, I will discuss the differences between these two approaches and explore the advantages and disadvantages of each. Judicial restraint is often associated with a conservative or strict constructionist view of the Constitution. This view emphasizes the importance of interpreting the Constitution as it was originally intended, and limiting the power of judges to make policy
I disagree with Alexander Hamilton’s statement that the "Judiciary is the weakest branch of government. " The United States government is divided among three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The executive and legislative branches are selected by the people, but the members of the Judicial Branch are chosen by the President. Which already shows how important the judicial branch is. The judicial branch is essential because it supplements the other two branches.
Nearly 231 years the Constitution of the United States was written. A preamble is a preliminary statement or an introduction. The Preamble of the Constitution outlines what the Constitution has in it. The Constitution of United States established America’s government and laws. The Articles of the Constitution are connected to the Preamble to the Constitution.