Federalist 78 - AP Government and Politics

What are the three important issues to deal with to understand the judicial branch?

1st. How to appoint the judges. 2d. Their tenure. 3d. The partition of the judiciary authority between different courts, and their relations to each other.

Review: How are senior officials (and federal judges) appointed?

The president must nominate a person (doesn't need to be a judge or have any formal education), and the legislative branch (specifically the Senate) must approve of them.

What arguments does Hamilton use to support life tenure for judges?

First, Hamilton says that life tenures free judges from political pressure that comes from the legislature or executive. This allows judges to guard against unconstitutional laws. Then, he says that judges have lots of demands, which shows that only a few men are able to become judges because of their ethical qualities.

How long is the term of office for judges?

It is a lifetime appointment.

Why is this an important check on the government?

Supreme court justices refer back to the constitution to ensure that public officials are following America's foundations and creating consitutionaly correct laws and legislation.

According to Hamilton, why is the judiciary the "least dangerous" branch?

It has no power over the legislative and executive branches, but they can check on those branches.

Since the judiciary is so weak, what keeps it from being overpowered by the other two branches?

Hamilton is arguing that the power given to the judiciary keeps the checks and balances fair.

Why was Hamilton so careful to point out the relative impotence of the judiciary?

To gain the American people's trust by pointing out that the government would not be used to deny the rights of the people.

How can the judiciary make sure the legislative branch remains on track?

The Judicial branch may check the legislative branch by declaring laws unconstitutional.

What is the concern of some (Anti-Federalists) concerning the idea that the judicial branch can declare acts unconstitutional?

Antifederalists were concerned that the judicial power of the United States would compromise the right to jury trials in civil cases.

How should the court rule in determining the validity of two laws that contradict each other?

Fix the language within the laws to either make it two different ones or combine them. Lastly, ensure that the law wanting to be passed is constitutional.

Why is it important that judges work to protect personal rights from an oppressive legislature?

Because they have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency.

What would be the result if judges were periodically appointed by the Executive or legislative branches or by popular vote?

It would put loyalty to the executive and legislative branch at risk as well as it would be fatal to the judiciary branches' independence.

What was Hamilton's position regarding the power of the judiciary to declare void any legislative acts that were contrary to the Constitution?

The judicial branch is needed as a middleman between the people and the legislative branch in order for the two of them to check their powers.

What examples does Hamilton give to show the principle that legislative acts can be overturned?

No congressional act is valid unless the supreme court deems it so because they deem things constitutional.

Why is the Constitution to be considered above any laws?

The constitution was written to be a higher law meaning its focused to be a moral form that gives all humans rights and ensures that laws and legislation include human rights.

Why should judges base their decisions on the Constitution above legislation?

The constitution is a proclamation and rule of law from the people for the people. Judges must base their decisions on the constitution because the power of the people is superior to legislation (according to Fed. 78).

Why does this same rule (#14) NOT apply to the Constitution?

The constitution comes first and foremost meaning you cannot combine laws because they're all different.

What would be the result if judges based their decisions on their own opinion rather than the law?

If the legislative branch wanted to do so, they could impeach the supreme court justice. If that judge is not impeached, their reputation would most likely be destroyed as they're personal opinions and perspectives are not suppose to interfere with their decision but should be decided with the constitution.

Therefore, why are lifetime appointments necessary?

If the judicial branch would have appointments similar to the legislative branch it would be an entire restart and would mean that the judges needed to understand the constitution to the dot and put personal opinions and views aside. Lifetime appointments are more efficient.

What is the danger of majority rule and how can lifetime appointment of judges counter that?

The danger of the majority rule is a majority can win a vote under majority rule, which can lead to a tyranny of the majority. The lifetime tenure helps to resist or ignore external pressures, even if it is the majority opinion.

Why are so few people qualified to be judges (another important advantage of lifetime appointment)?

Supreme court judges have a lot of demands, showcasing that only a few men are able to become judges because of their ethical qualities and loyalty to the constitution.

Why does Hamilton consider the independence of the judiciary to be a vital component of constitutional government?

First, Hamilton says that life tenures free's judges from political pressure that come from the legislature or executive. This allows judges to guard against unconstitutional laws. Then, he says that judges have lots of demands, which shows that only few men are able to become judges because of their ethical qualities.

Still learning (14)

You've started learning these terms. Keep it up!