Federalist - Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton describes the importance of an independent judicial branch of government and the meaning of the Judicial Review in his Federalist 78 paper. The constitution states that federal judges remain in office for life predicated on their good behavior. Hamilton is quite amused by anyone who questions that a life office or tenure is one of the most valuable privileges within the bounds of representative government. However, allowing judges to hold office for life frees them from political pressures and prevents advances on judicial power by the President of the United States or members of Congress.

It is stated that the judicial branch of government is the weakest branch and only possesses the power to judge and not act. The main objective of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality of the law. Even when the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it still depends upon the Executive Branch to implement and carry it out. Also, political rights are the least threatened by the judicial branch.

Mr. Hamilton states in part from his Federalist 78 paper that "This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security."

However, when the constitution was first written, it was designed to protect the rights and liberties of individuals. Moreover, with certain guidelines to ensure Congress didn't abuse their power or authority. Thus, the Supreme Court, as an independent branch of government, is there to protect those very rights. Yet, the power and mere existence of the Supreme Court to declare certain laws unconstitutional makes a good debate that the judicial branch is superior to the legislative branch. Mr. Hamilton goes on to address this argument by stating that only the Constitution itself is fundamental law. To suggest that the Constitution is not superior to the law suggests that members of Congress are superior to the people that they serve and that the Constitution is inferior to the government. Being that the Supreme Court is the least powerful in the three branches of government, they are merely the arbiter between the legislative branch and the people. The court must interpret the laws and prevent congress from being above the law. Additionally, the Court must not only place the Constitution higher than the laws passed by congress, but they must place the people ahead of the intentions of their elected representatives. While it is true that congress, not the courts, makes and passes laws, it is the Courts responsibility to interpret and decide whether the law is constitutionally correct. Though the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting what law means,