The Judiciary, The Weakest Branch Of Government

The Judicial Branch is the balancing factor of the Government. It is the listener of the people of the US and it decides on all matters regarding the people. It "interprets the nation's law" (World Book 141). Being able to interpret the law gives the Judicial branch a special kind of power. One of which the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch do not possess. The Judicial branch decides when a law has been broken, to what extent, and how to punish the criminal act. And that is what makes it the strongest branch.

Another statement that Hamilton mentioned was that by the judicial branch being independent it may fulfill its main purpose which is to protect the rights and privileges of the people, as set forth by the constitution. In order to protect those rights, the judiciary should be given that power of judicial review to declare and void laws that are considered unconstitutional. Hamilton made a stamen that by giving judges tenure is an integral part of the judiciary system. Therefore, it would help to address some immediate concerns of appointing the unjust judge and a good behavior itself will place the power to the citizens. With that being said, once again he proves that the judicial branch is at mercy to the people. The only thing I disagree is that by giving tenure to judges it mixes political views with personal values creating a law in favor of the president, who is controlled and elected by the ruling class. Today courts have ruled in favor of politicians who have taken liberties from citizens one at a

In your educated opinion, is the Judiciary really the weakest branch of government? Explain your answer. Has the Court gained or lost power over time? How would Hamilton respond to your argument?

Why do you suppose that Hamilton was so careful to point out the relative weakness of the judiciary? – I believe Hamilton really stressed the feebleness of the Judiciary branch because he wanted to prove the anti-federalists wrong as this set of papers was meant to get the Constitution ratified. By making the point that the judiciary branch poses no real threat to liberty like Congress and the President can, this proves that the proposed Constitution will protect individual rights like the anti-federalists

Since these rights are given by God, no man has the moral right to seize them from another man. Following this line of thought, Hamilton further extrapolates that any civil government must be established via a voluntary compact, containing self restraining limits so as to protect the natural rights of those ruled, which should be the objective of every civil government. Any government that usurps these boundaries thus violates our natural rights and can, “Confer no obligation to obedience” (Hamilton, 97). Hamilton once again stresses the import of the fact that the sole purpose of human law is to maintain our absolute rights. Masterfully, Hamilton turns around and uses similar solid evidences to examine Parliament. Arguing avidly that Parliament does not protect colonists’ rights, he presents that Parliament is both assumptive in its authority over its citizens without consent, and also takes away their security because they have no voluntary participation in the making of laws. As such, uncontrolled legislators are unbound, and a government that no longer falls in line with the natural laws delegitimizes itself. Hamilton shows that America’s Congress was created in opposition to such a government. In his closing, he contends with his opponent by once again headlining the fact that laws and government which conflict with natural rights (such as Parliament) can not be considered truly

The next paragraph that Hamilton wrote defined what the judiciary system is about. He first explains the roles of the Executive and legislature saying “the Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community” and “the legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated.” Directly following these statements, Hamilton described the judiciary by writing, “the judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” Hamilton wrote that the judiciary’s job was “merely judgment.” The judiciary has the power of judgment over the different levels of government, including state governments. It has the power to judge whether the laws made by these governments are constitutional or the antithesis.

Alexander Hamilton wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers, a collection of essays intended to explain and defend the Constitution. In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton explains the powers of the courts. He viewed the courts as the least likely of all of the branches of government to impose upon or threaten the liberties and properties of Americans. Hamilton begins his argument by mentioning that federal judges serve for life. He explains that the reason for this lifelong term is to help the judges avoid pressures from other political powers or the popular opinion. Therefore, judges would also be the least likely to let their political agendas get in the way of Americans’ freedom and possessions.

The United States government consists of three main branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Within the contents of this essay, the judicial branch will be examined. The judicial branch of the United States government oversees justice throughout the country by expounding and applying laws by means of a court system.1 This system functions by hearing and determining the legality of such cases.2 Sitting at the top of the United States court system is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States encompasses the federal judiciary, explicitly the judicial branch. This court is comprised of life-long serving Justices who are selected by the President of the United States and approved by the Senate.3 Cooperatively,

Nevertheless, some critics argue that the judidicary, some critics argue that the judiciary are the final arbiters of what is meant by the principle of separation of powers, which therefore provides the judiciary with subordinate levels of power. Moreover Chief Justice Hughes concluding that the ‘Constitution is what the judges say it is’ due to ability to interpret the constitution. In America, although Congress may new laws affecting courts, ultimately judges decide.

He says, “A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government” (422). He states that an energetic Executive is needed in times of war against foreign countries and to secure liberty against faction and anarchy. The creation of an Executive branch made many people uncomfortable since it seemed to put people’s liberty at risk. As history has shown, most of the men who have overturned the liberties of republics started their career by devoting themselves to the people and promising liberty (29). While some may think it is safer to split Executive power to reduce the possibility of despotism, Hamilton argues that “executive power is more easily confined when it is one” since there will only be a single object for the “jealousy and watchfulness of the people” (428). It is acceptable in Congress to have differences of opinion since it forces discussion and deliberation. But the Executive branch, in charged with the execution of the laws, cannot do its job properly if it is so fragmented by factions. Therefore, splitting Executive power is “rather dangerous than friendly to liberty” (428). In Federalist 47, Madison ensures people that the creation of an Executive branch will not lead to a despotism by claiming that systems of separation of powers and checks and balances will preserve liberty. He quotes Montesquieu and says, "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body, there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical manner" (300). However, separation of powers and checks and balances gives each branch of government, its distinct powers, but also a way to keep each other in line. The House holds the power of the purse and only the House can propose bills for funding the government. The House cannot pass bills without

The 23rd Federalist Paper discusses how to protect and defend Americans from exotic aggression. Hamilton believed that even the Articles of Confederation showed how important the military was because they were providing Congress to make unlimited requests for men and money to direct their operations. He made the essentials clear for a new constitution. In that constitution, the three branches needed to be sufficient in order to do the people’s job. Those jobs were preserve peace, regulate commerce and diplomacy. It states that the Federal Gov’t should be responsible in raising and supporting the armies, the judiciary, and regulation of commerce while arguing that a vibrant government with the powers must provide the means to achieve them in

Hamilton advocates that the constitution should not have a Bill of Rights. The reason that he states that is not necessary is because he states that is already in the constitution. But the main reason he advocates to not have a Bill of Rights is because it can be dangerous. He states, “ Affirm, that bill of rights, in the sense and to the extend they are contended for, are not unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous”. The reason that he states that can be dangerous because it can harm others and not be rights for everyone. He also states that, “They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted”. Then he states

The reasons why Hamilton states that the judicial branch is the least dangerous branch of the government is that it is impossible for the judicial branch to act upon the other branches of the government. With the judicial branch being the least dangerous, the people’s rights are safe. The job of the judicial branch is to only judge but with the help of the executive branch. Going further, some of the possible effects on the judicial branch being the least dangerous are not being able to attack the other branches of the government. If there was to be no separation between the branches of the government, the liberty of the people would be in danger. Hamilton suggested that it is the job of the union to ensure that the branches are separated especially

The Constitution was created in 1787. That was roughly 18th centuries ago, when the constitution was established. You can only envision the changes and growth that occurred over time within our country. Recently, I've read the federalist No. 78 (The judiciary department) written by Alexander Hamilton. I created a research paper based off the excerpt and answered two questions that was asked of me. I elaborated on Hamilton's views on the government, judicial system. I also provided an educational theory on how Hamilton would perceive the government judicial branch position of power this current era. It's astonishing how a position of power can drastically change over time. Overall, Hamilton believed the judicial system is the weakest branch of the government. He believed their position is overpowered by the executive and the legislative branch. Today the dialog of discussion would be on his insight on the government system in his era and I’ll also be providing a theory on how he would feel about today’s judicial branch of government in the 21st-century.

The judicial branch carries the most power because they have the ability to settle disagreements surrounding the meaning of law.The judicial branch takes power and has the ability to rectify disagreements enclosing the meaning of law.’’Decide if laws or actions by the president are constitutional’’