Paper78

=__Federalist Paper 78__=

Jamie Kassner
= = = = =**Summary:**=

This essay is written by Alexander Hamilton and he starts by introducing what the essay is going to be about- the judicial branch. When the federal judges are appointed, they stay in office for a life long term as long as they have good behavior. Having a life long term enables the judges to avoid political influence. The judicial branch of government is the weakest. It cannot forcefully do anything, only judge. And the judiciary even has to rely on the executive branch in order for its judgements to be recognized. The judicial branch will never endanger the liberty of the people because of checks and balances. The fact that the courts can deem laws unconstitutional might make one believe that the judicial branch is stronger than the legislative branch, but its not. The courts are only there to interpret the laws and make sure the legislative branch does not overuse its power. The courts must look out for the protect of the rights of the people and the constitution before the intentions of the representatives. The people are superior to both branches. The congress’s job is to pass laws and the court’s is to interpret them. The freedom of the courts is also necessary to protect the rights of the people from unfair ruling. The fact that the people have the right to overthrow the government is not sufficient protection. If people were plotting the downfall of the government, it would not be an orderly situation. The people can rely on the judicial branch to protect their rights. Another reason why judges have a life term is because it takes many years to learn the laws and someone in short term would not be able to learn them all. Life tenure, with good behavior, is the best way for the judicial branch for operate and for the rights of the people to be protected.

=**Main Objective:**=

The main objective of this essay was for Alexander Hamilton to convince the Antifederalists of New York that the judicial branch is beneficial to the rights people.

=**Strongest Arguments Presented in the Paper:**=

One of the strongest arguments Hamilton uses to show how the judicial branch is beneficial to us is first by saying how to judicial branch is the weakest of the three and does not pose a threat to the rights of the people. It cannot forcefully do anything, it can only judge and its judgements can only be enforced by the other branches. Another strong argument is the power of “judicial review,” which powers the judicial branch to deny a law passed by congress. This argues how a system of checks and balances will protect the people’s rights and neither of the branches will become too powerful. The life long terms of a Supreme Court judge was also argued. Hamilton argued that as long as judges have good behavior, keeping them in office for a life long term is the best way for the court system to operate. He said that if the judges were only in office for a short term they would not be able to learn the laws as well as judges who have been there all their lives. Also, Hamilton says that having a permanent term as a judge can free them from political pressures.

=**Opposing Arguments of Antifederalists:**= = =

=** An opposing argument of the Antifederalists Hamilton tried to address was the freedom of the federal judges. They Antifederalists thought having a judge in for a life term would be giving them too much power and Hamilton presented arguments to support that the judges would protect the rights of the people instead of deprive them. Another argument of the Antifederalists was the freedom of the judiciary. The Antifederalists felt that there was no power to control the decisions made by the courts and Hamilton tackled this argument by saying that even though the judiciary can make decisions, they cannot be carried out unless the executive branch does so. The Antifederalists also argued that the judiciary would become too strong and this would jeopardize their rights. Hamilton argued that the judicial branch has neither “FORCE nor WILL.” He means that the judiciary cannot forcefully do anything, or act. He also mentions that the judicial branch should not even be a worry because it is the weakest branch of the three. **=

==** I do not see any flaws in Federalist Paper 78. I think that Hamilton got his point across clearly and effectively. He started by presenting the arguments or potential problems he thought might arise then he showed how those problems would not occur. One of arguments he refuted was the freedom of federal judges and how they might over extend their power. He refuted this by saying how having a federal judge in office for a life term is beneficial to the protection of the people’s rights rather than harmful. Hamilton says how a judge that is in for a life term will have more knowledge of the laws and make better judgements than a judge that was in office for a short term. Another example of an argument Hamilton refuted was that the judicial branch would over extend its power. He said how the judicial branch is the least dangerous of the three branches and that they have no power to act, only to judge. He also said even these judgements cannot be enforced without the power of the executive branch. I think the way Hamilton refuted these arguments was extremely effective because he proved that the people’s rights will not be violated. His arguments were very convincing and I think the Antifederalists probably no longer felt threatened by the judicial branch over extending its power after reading this essay. **==

**Do these issues exist today?**
The arguments presented in Federalist Paper 78 no longer exist today. The main argument, which was that the judicial branch is weak, has been contradicted by many court cases. The strength of the court is shown through judicial review and the power to declare something “unconstitutional.” The first time the judicial branch showed this strength was in 1803 in the case of Marbury v. Madison. This case resulted from a trial in the Supreme Court in which William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as the Justice of Peace, did not have commission delievered. Marbury fought in the the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State, James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional. This was the first time that the Supreme Court declared something “unconstitutional,” setting a precedent for the courts cases of today. Today, an example of the judicial branch exercising this power would be on the issue of gay marriage in Iowa. In this past April of ’09, gay marriage was made legal in Iowa. “We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective,” Justice Mark S. Cady wrote for the seven-member court, adding later, “We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.” The Supreme Court came to this conclusion because they realized it was unconstitutional to not treat the gay community as equal.