Federalist No. 78 Summary

Since the establishment of the United States Supreme Court in 1789 the role and function of the court has varied depending on the need of the country. There are several different schools of thought when it comes to the purpose and the function that the Supreme Court should take, ranging from strictly ruling on constitutional matters up to weighing in on national policy cases. To evaluate what role the court actually takes, one must examine both the institutional function as well as the political function. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78 has been considered one of the most influential pieces of work in the field, as it lays the ground work of what he believed was the role of the court.

Vy Tran Professor Matthew Freeman November 16th, 2015 Argumentative essay: Federalist 70 In my perspective, the most significant argument made in Federalist 70 is the power and energy of the presidency is a standout amongst the most referenced federalist papers concerning the administration and an executive branch should be ruled by a single man. Some people argued that a vigorous and strong executive is not suitable with a republican principles.

My Judicial Philosophy: Minimal Extrapolation Non-Originalism The two main prevailing legal philosophies when it comes to constitutional interpretation are originalism and non-originalism. Originalists believe in interpreting the constitution based directly on the framers’ intent when writing it and other Amendments while non-originalists view the Constitution in the context of the time it is applied, referring back to the spirit of the framers’ intent, not the intent itself. Both these ideologies alone are seriously flawed and no one would ever argue that historical intent alone or modern context and consequences alone would lead to smart legal opinions. The intent of the Second Amendment, for example, was derived from the Lockean ideals

In the Federalist Papers Fifty-Three, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Eight, Sixty-Two, and Sixty-Three, James Madison writes about the proper way to carry out the new form of government, in regards to the Legislative Branch. In Federalist Paper Fifty-Three, James Madison writes, “Some portion of this knowledge may, no doubt, be acquired in a man’s closet; but some of it also can only be acquired to best effect, by a practical attention to the subject, during the period of actual service in the legislature” (pg. 333). This means that serving two terms in the House of Representatives in more convenient because it allows the Representatives to acquire more knowledge.

The argument/famous Supreme Court case Madison vs. Marbury asked us the question should the Judicial Branch be able to declare laws unconstitutional. I think the Judicial Branch should be able to declare a law unconstitutional. I believe this because the judicial branch is very small, they have no other checks on any other branch, and they don’t receive any money. The Judicial Branch is so small.

We gained two important pieces of American history from the discourse between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalists. First we gained a more balanced Constitution with the addition of the Bill of Rights. Second being the Federalist Papers. The federalist papers are a collection of 85 articles and essays written. These papers explained the Constitution and its meaning to many who were not informed.

Federalists vs Democratic Republicans The government has to be run by someone right but by what party and how? The first two political parties in the nation had many different conflicting views on how to run the government. They both had obvious reasons for who the type of people they wanted to be in control.

THESIS: The Federalist versus anti-federalist debate is still a major part of American law making. One example of this conflict can be seen in the modern day with the state versus federal government argument on immigration. The basic federalist and anti-federalist ideas can be seen on page 185 of the hush textbook.

A “judicial review,” is a court’s authority to examine an executive or legislative act if it shows anything conflicting to constitutional values. The type of power that allows a court to examine any of the actions in the branches is what the judicial review does. The United States Supreme Court possess the highest authority and is over both the federal and the state courts in the country. When a judicial review is conducted it helps the state courts determine whether or not statutes are valid in the state. If any of the state’s laws is in direct violation of the United States Constitution, then it is deemed those statues are not valid.

Where the Constitution provides foundation for the importance of judicial independence and the publications of the era provide context and analytical guidance, cases before the High Court have since then expounded upon the importance of judicial independence by discussing it in contexts beyond that of life tenure or compensation. Bradley v. Fisher allowed the Court to discuss judicial independence in the context of judicial immunity, stating that judges being free to act upon their own convictions without apprehension of consequences to themselves is "a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice. . . " Although the context is one regarding the immunity of judges against liability, the message is merely