The Judicial Branch

slide set 1 for poli sci final

Hamilton claimed the lack of a judicial branch under the Articles of Confederation was a critical defect - why did he believe that courts are essential to government?

Courts are necessary to “expound and define (laws) true meaning and operation” and without judicial determination of a law’s meaning, then “laws are a dead letter”

There are two “indispensable” ingredients to creating uniform decisions: what are the two “indispensable” ingredients?

“One SUPREME TRIBUNAL” and the court of final resort must be formed under the federal government

why is uniformity of interpretation important to the federal government?

A lack of uniformity creates confusion about what decisions to follow, especially if all 13 colonies had a supreme court that was allowed to determine a federal law’s meaning. Laws should be predictable, which varying interpretations undermine

Hamilton feared that state courts would interpret their laws in ways that would undermine federal laws - what is the basis for Hamilton’s fear?

State judges will be biased towards pleasing their states’ citizens to the detriment of the federal government and national causes. Most state courts judges are elected: “Nothing is more natural to men in office, than to look with peculiar deference towards that authority to which they owe their official existence.”, state judges are insufficiently independent.

What reason does the Federal Farmer give for those claims?

Judges have “a vast deal of discretion and interpretation” and much will be left to their wisdom, integrity, and politics. Because of this, when wrongs are committed, it will be difficuly to charge them with misconduct.

The Federal Farmer suggests that we can discover evil by the Legislative and Executive branch sooner than we can the Judicial branch - what explanation does he five for this?

The Judicial branch’s actions are more complicated to understand because its “proceedings … are far more intricate, complex, and out of (citizens) immediate view.” Everyone knows when a bad law is passed but typically only a few people know about a bad legal decision. We’ve all cared so much about the abuses of the Legislative and Executive branches that no one has considered the evils of the Judicial branch. And those who are able to do so are not known for being vigilant in defending liberty.

What points is the Federal Farmer making when he states “that the measures of popular legislatures natural settle down in time, and gradually approach a mild and just medium; while the rigid system of law courts naturally become more severe and arbitrary…”

Bad legislative decisions work themselves out: laws cna be repealed, new laws can be passed, legislators can be voted out of office. The judicial branch’s independence does not allow for this type of self-correction, which could lead to poor decisions becoming entrenched in society.

Considering these features of the British judicial system, Brutus gives three reasons why judges in America should not be independent - what are those three reasons?

First: There is no body that can correct judicial errors, even though the Supreme Court can determien the extent of Congress’s powers and determine what the Consititution “means”

Second: There is no way to hold the judicial branch accountable: neither Congress nor the Executive branch can diminish judges’ salaries or remove them from office for error or want of mental capacity

• it does not matter that Congress can impeach judges fro “high crimes and misdemeanors” because lack of mental capacity and mistakes in legal judgement do not fall under those catgories

• being a bad or unitelligent judge is not evidence of corruption or lack of integrity

Third: The Supreme Court’s power is supreme to the Legislature because it can declare as void any law passed by the Legislature that it believes is inconsistent with the Constitution’s meaning. The Legislature has no role (supposedly) in determining the Constitution’s meeting

What three “important consequences” result from this position?

First: Judicial branch is the “last dangerous” because it can never successfully attack the other two, so it must be made able to defend itself

Second: Liberty cannot be endangered so long as the Judicial branch remains independent of the other two branches; “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”

Third: Judicial independence by way of permanency of office is “an indispensable ingredient” to the Constiution because of “the natural feebleness of the judiciary” and the dangers to liberty that would result if either of the other branches united with the Judicial branch

Why are complete independent courts necessary under a limited constitution (a constitution that limits powers of each branch)?

Limitations are useless if courts cannot declare when those limits have been violated

How does Hamilton response to Brutus’s argument that SCOTUS is supreme to the Legislature because it can declare laws as void?

Like the Supremacy Clause, the act of the lesser power cannot override the wishes of the greater power; therefore, a legislative act contrary to the Constitution cannot be valid

To say otherwise would undermine the sovereignty of the People. It would “enable the representatives of the People to substitute there will to that of their constituents”, which is expressed in the Constitution

Why is judicial independence important even though America does not have a monarchy?

Periodical appointments would cause judges to look to please whoever is responsible for their position — nothing should matter but the Constitution

Wilson states that judges must not be independent but also appear independent. According to Wilson, why is judicial independence important?

Judicial decisions impact every aspect of life, liberty, reputation, and property

Because of the significance of those decisions, it is important that citizens trust and respect the judicial system so that they can be confident in such decisions, even if a decision is unfavorable to their circumstances

If judges are not independent, or at least do not appear independent, what potential dangers will society face?

Courts would no longer “be the voice of law and justice and would become the echo of faction and violence

Madison rejects three alternatives to SCOTUS. First: Resolve disagreements by Conventions

• Referring every disagreement to the People would be too cumbersone; and

  • It would tend to lessen the respect for the Constitution since it would need to be explained so often

Madison rejects three alternatives to SCOTUS. Second: Create an ultimate tribunal in each State

• This would undermine the whole purpose of the Union

• each state would create a different Constitution through judicial decisions

Madison rejects three alternatives to SCOTUS. Third: Allow the parties - including different state governments - to work it out themselves

• this would never work, and it would devolve into determinign a winner based on brute strength rather than the merits

• repeatedly, leaving different governments to negotiate would result in likely war

Why does Justice Story think that America’s situation is different, so that it would improper to allow the Executive or Legislative branches the power to remove judges?

• The People are sovereign in America - not the Legislative nor the Executive branch - and the People gave each branch limited powers.

• The primary security under the Constitution to check the Legislative/ Executive branches is the Judicial branch. Permitting the Legislative/ Executive branches to remove judges would surrender the guardian of the Constitution to those whom it is supposed to guard against

  • “It would have been placing the keys of the citadel in the posession of those against whose assaults the people were most strenuously endeavoring to guard themselves.”

Justice Story also opposes removing judges for mental incapacity — why?

• it is too difficult to determine when a person is mentally unfit: “The (measuring) of the faculties of the mind has no place in the catalogue of any known art or science.”

• This would result in political battles and would not advance the public good