FederalistPaperAssignment-ktave

docx

School

Dallas Colleges *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1301

Subject

Political Science

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by JudgeOyster225

Federalist 81: Judiciary Distribution Kiesha Tave In this essay, Alexander Hamilton discusses how judicial power is divided among courts and how they relate to each other. Hamilton starts by saying that it's important to have one court that has the highest authority and makes the final decisions. This idea was unlikely to be argued against. Then he discusses whether this highest court should be a separate group or part of the legislature. From a social standpoint, he constructs this essay in an attempt to contribute to the understanding and discussion of the partition of the judiciary authority. From a personal standpoint, he is attempting to explain and defend the partition of the judiciary authority and the establishment of a Supreme Court as the ultimate court of jurisdiction. Hamilton highlights the contradiction in the arguments against the proposed Supreme Court. Many constituents were worried that it would have more power than the legislature and could make laws however they choose. Hamilton says that the Constitution does not give the national courts any special right to interpret laws based on the spirit of the Constitution more than the courts of individual states. He states that the Constitution should be the standard for making laws, and when there is a clear conflict, the laws should follow the Constitution. Hamilton believes that this principle applies to both federal and state courts. In addition, Hamilton discusses the objection to the Supreme Court being a separate group of judges instead of being part of the legislature, as in Great Britain and some states. He acknowledges that this arrangement does not exactly violate the separation of powers, but it comes close and is not as good as the convention's preferred method. He argues that judges who have created bad laws are unlikely to moderate and soften them when interpreting them. Furthermore, he emphasizes the importance of judges having job security if they behave well, which would not apply to a group chosen for a limited time. Hamilton praises the wisdom of having separate and independent judicial bodies as a last resort. He argues against the idea that this arrangement is new or unprecedented. He rejects the claim that the British Parliament or state legislatures can change court decisions. Hamilton asserts that once a decision is made in a specific case, the legislature cannot reverse it within its jurisdiction. While the legislature can create new rules for future cases, it cannot revise past decisions. Moreover, Hamilton dismisses the supposed danger of judicial encroachments on legislative authority, emphasizing that misconstructions and contravention of legislative may occur but will not be extensive enough to significantly affect the pollical system’s order. He argues that the judicial power is comparatively weak and incapable of supporting its usurpations by force. He also highlights the important constitutional check provided by the power of instituting impeachments, which allows one part of the legislative body to hold the members of the judicial department accountable. Hamilton concludes by suggesting that the Senate should be constituted as the court for the trial of impeachments. In summary, Hamilton discusses the distribution of judicial power by addressing the need for a supreme court, the role of the judiciary in interpreting laws according to the Constitution, the composition of the Supreme Court, the propriety of constituting lower courts. He provides

arguments to counter objections and emphasizes the importance of an independent judiciary to safeguard the principles of justice and the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United Sates by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Sates, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Hamilton discussed the partition of judicial authority and the role of the Supreme Court in shaping the Constitution. Today, modern American Supreme Court cases involving the Tenth Amendment provide deeper insight into the ongoing relevance of Hamilton’s arguments in Federalist 81. A significant modern Supreme Court decision is National Federation of independent Business v. Sebelius (2012). In this case, the Court addressed the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The central issue was whether the individual mandate involving most American to obtain health insurance or suffer a tax penalty. This exceeded the federal government’s authority under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. Hamilton emphasized the need for a distinct and independent judiciary. He argued that the ultimate decision-making power should not be vested solely in the legeslative branch. This perspective aligns with the Court’s role interpreting the Constitution and resolving conflicts between federal and state law. In the aforementioned case, the Court’s decision to uphold the individual mandate as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power demonstrated the judiciary’s role in defining the boundaries of federal authority under the Tenth Amendment. Another notable case that sheds light on Hamilton's Federalist 81 is United States v. Lopez (1995). In this case, the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made it a federal offense to possess a firearm in a school zone. The Court held that the Act exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, as it did not sufficiently demonstrate a substantial connection to interstate commerce. This case had significant implications for federal power and the limitations of the Commerce Clause. It reinforced the principle of limited federal power and the need for a balance between federal and state authority. Hamilton's essay emphasizes the importance of limited constitutional powers and the need for a strong judiciary to prevent encroachments on individual liberties. In Federalist 81, he argues against the concentration of power in the legislative branch. United States v. Lopez reflects Hamilton's concerns by highlighting the Court's role in safeguarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The Court's decision reaffirmed the limits of Congress's authority and the significance of the Tenth Amendment in preserving the principles of federalism. In conclusion, modern American Supreme Court cases involving the Tenth Amendment provide valuable insights into the arguments presented in Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 81. These cases demonstrate the ongoing relevance of Hamilton's call for a separate and independent judiciary, as well as the Court's role in interpreting the Constitution and defining the limits of federal power. The Supreme Court had the social and personal responsibility of interpreting the Constitution and ensuring the proper balance of power between the federal government and the states. The Court's role was to determine the constitutionality of laws and to define the limits of federal authority under the Tenth Amendment. In both cases, the Court had the responsibility to

safeguard individual liberties and prevent encroachments on constitutional rights. Through cases like National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court continues to shape the understanding and application of the Tenth Amendment in the context of contemporary legal issues. Bibliography Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 81, in The Federalist , guides.loc.gov. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-81-85 “National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012).” 2012. LII / Legal Information Institute. 2012. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/national_federation_of_independent_business_v._sebeli us_%282012%29 . “United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).” 2019. Cornell.edu . 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZS.html . Supreme Court. United States v. Lopez (93-1260), 514 U.S. 549 (1995). 1995. United States Reports. See 28 U. S. C. §411 , https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/514bv.pdf . Supreme Court. National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., 567 U. S. 519 (2012). 2012. United States Reports. See 28 U. S. C. §411, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/567BV.pdf

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version