Federalist 78, EXPLAINED [AP Gov Required Documents]
Summary
TLDRIn this video, we explore Federalist 78 by Alexander Hamilton, which advocates for the judicial branch's structure under the new US Constitution. Hamilton argues for lifetime appointments of federal judges to ensure their independence and impartiality. He also explains the concept of judicial review, where courts can declare laws unconstitutional, emphasizing it does not make the judiciary more powerful but serves as a check on legislative power, aligning with the people's will as expressed in the Constitution.
Takeaways
- 📜 Federalist 78 is one of the Federalist Papers written to support the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
- 👨⚖️ Authored by Alexander Hamilton, it focuses on the establishment of the judicial branch under the new Constitution.
- 🏛️ Prior to the Constitution, there was no federal court system under the Articles of Confederation.
- 🤔 The debate centered on the appointment process and the powers of the judicial branch, not its necessity.
- 👨💼 Federal judges are appointed by the President and serve during 'good behavior,' effectively for life.
- 🚫 Anti-Federalists were concerned about the lack of direct election and the inability to remove judges through elections.
- 💡 Hamilton argued for lifetime appointments to ensure judicial independence and impartiality.
- 📚 Lifetime tenure allows judges to be well-versed in legal precedent without the pressure of re-election.
- 🏛️ Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional if they violate the Constitution.
- ⚖️ Hamilton refuted claims that judicial review made the judiciary more powerful than the legislature, emphasizing that it balanced and checked legislative power.
- 🌐 The ultimate authority lies with the people, and judges should uphold the Constitution over unconstitutional legislative acts.
Q & A
What is the main topic of Federalist 78?
-Federalist 78 focuses on the judicial branch of the new federal government outlined in the Constitution, written by Alexander Hamilton.
Why was there a need for a new judicial institution in America?
-There was no federal court system under the Articles of Confederation, which was ineffective, and it was widely agreed that America needed a new judicial institution.
How are federal judges appointed according to the Constitution?
-Federal judges are appointed by the President, as stated in Article 3 of the Constitution.
What does 'during good behavior' mean in the context of federal judges' terms?
-It means that federal judges will hold their offices for life as long as they behave well, i.e., they are not impeached or removed from office for misconduct.
Why did Hamilton argue for lifetime appointments for judges?
-Hamilton argued that lifetime appointments were necessary to keep the judicial branch as independent as possible, ensuring impartiality and not having to please the people for re-election.
What is the practical function of lifetime appointments for federal judges as mentioned by Hamilton?
-Lifetime appointments allow judges to accumulate extensive legal knowledge and experience without the pressure of needing to relearn everything if terms were temporary, ensuring continuity and quality in the administration of justice.
What is the role of the judicial branch in terms of checking the legislative branch according to Federalist 78?
-The judicial branch has the power of judicial review, which allows it to declare acts of Congress contrary to the Constitution void, thus checking the legislative branch.
How does Hamilton refute the argument that judicial review makes the judiciary more powerful than the legislature?
-Hamilton argues that no legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid, so the judiciary is not claiming power but is instead upholding the Constitution, which represents the will of the people.
What does Hamilton mean when he says the courts are an intermediate body between the people and the legislature?
-Hamilton means that the courts act as a check on the legislature to ensure that it does not overstep its authority, balancing the power between the branches of government.
What is the significance of the phrase 'the will of the people declared in the Constitution' in Federalist 78?
-It signifies that the Constitution represents the supreme law and the ultimate will of the people, and any legislative act that contradicts it is invalid, thus the judiciary must uphold the Constitution over such acts.
Outlines
📜 Introduction to Federalist 78
The paragraph introduces Federalist 78, one of the Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton, which advocates for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. It discusses the necessity of establishing a federal court system under the new Constitution, as the previous Articles of Confederation lacked a cohesive judicial structure. The main debate revolves around the appointment process and the powers of the judicial branch, with Hamilton arguing for lifetime appointments to ensure judicial independence.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Federalist Papers
💡Alexander Hamilton
💡Judicial Branch
💡Lifetime Appointments
💡Good Behavior
💡Anti-Federalists
💡Judicial Review
💡Null and Void
💡Legislative Encroachments
💡Madison's Argument
💡Balance of Power
Highlights
Federalist 78 focuses on the judicial branch of the new federal government outlined in the constitution.
The Federalist Papers were written to argue for the ratification of the newly drafted constitution.
Federalist 78 was written by Alexander Hamilton, discussing the judicial branch.
There was no federal court system under the Articles of Confederation, which was seen as a problem.
Hamilton argues for a new judicial institution to be established.
The debate centers on how judges are appointed and the length of their term.
Federal judges are appointed by the president according to Article 3 of the constitution.
Judges hold their offices during good behavior, effectively for life.
Anti-federalists were concerned about judges having life tenure without being elected by the people.
Hamilton argues that lifetime appointments are necessary for judicial independence.
Lifetime appointments allow judges to rule impartially without fearing re-election.
Hamilton also argues that lifetime appointments are practical due to the vast amount of legal precedent a judge must know.
He suggests that temporary appointments would discourage qualified individuals from joining the judiciary.
Hamilton discusses the scope and limits of the judicial branch's power, including judicial review.
Judicial review allows courts to declare laws contrary to the constitution void.
Hamilton's detractors argue that judicial review makes the judiciary more powerful than the legislative branch.
Hamilton counters that no unconstitutional law can be binding, thus the judiciary does not have undue power.
He explains that the judiciary is designed to keep the legislature within its constitutional limits.
Hamilton concludes that the power of the people is superior to both legislative and judicial powers.
The video offers a review packet to help students achieve high scores in their AP classes.
The video encourages viewers to subscribe for more help with AP classes.
Transcripts
hey there and welcome back to heimlich
history in this video we're going to
look at another one of your required
documents for ap government namely
federalist 78 so if you're ready to give
me a lifetime appointment to milk your
brain cows then let's get to it now the
federalist papers were of course written
to argue for the ratification of the
newly drafted constitution and
federalist 78 written by our boy
alexander hamilton is all about the
judicial branch of the new federal
government outlined in the constitution
now he begins by acknowledging that
since there was no federal court system
under the articles of confederation
which was patently a hot mess nobody
really disagreed that america needed
this new judicial institution the only
real argument is over how and for how
long justices will be appointed and what
kind of power the judicial branch should
have so let's start with how judges will
be appointed to the federal courts and
for how long so federal judges are
appointed by the president according to
article 3 of the constitution and as to
the length of their term hamilton says
according to the plan of the convention
all judges who may be appointed to the
united states are to hold their offices
during good behavior so that means as
long as federal judges behave they will
hold their offices for life now that
seemed awfully suspect to
anti-federalists who are arguing against
the ratification of the constitution so
you're saying that the people don't
elect these judges and the people can't
replace these judges in elections
because they have life tenure i say
but hamilton argued that lifetime
appointments were a necessity to keep
this branch of government as independent
as possible he says if then the courts
of justice are to be considered as the
bulwarks of a limited constitution
against legislative encroachments this
consideration will afford a strong
argument for the permanent tenure of
judicial offices since nothing will
contribute so much as this to that
independent spirit in the judges which
must be essential to the faithful
performance of so arduous of duty do you
remember madison's argument from
federalist 51 that in order for this new
government to work each of the three
branches had to operate as independently
as possible that's essentially what
hamilton is arguing here for the
judicial branch lifetime appointments
make it possible for judges to rule with
impartiality and not have to worry about
pleasing the people for the sake of
re-election additionally lifetime
appointments serve a practical function
as well hamilton says think about the
whole mountain of precedence that a
federal judge will be responsible for
knowing if you change judges out at any
span of time the amount of learning that
must be done will make the office itself
prohibitive and that's a problem because
a temporary duration in office which
would naturally discourage such
characters from quitting a lucrative
line of law practice to accept a seat on
the bench would have the tendency to
throw the administration of justice into
hands less able and less well qualified
to conduct it with utility and dignity
so that's why according to hamilton
lifetime appointments are necessary for
the judiciary he then goes on to talk
about the scope and limits of power of
the judicial branch the duty of federal
judges he says must be to declare all
acts contrary to the manifest tenor of
the constitution
void the word for this power of the
judicial branch is judicial review the
court is responsible for considering
laws passed by congress and making sure
that they are in line with the
constitution if the court finds that
they are not and rules in such a manner
then the offending laws are considered
null and void now hamilton's detractors
argued that such power would make the
judicial branch more powerful than the
legislative branch which represented the
people and that's what it sounds like
right like if the federal courts can
overturn a law passed by the legislature
then it sounds like the judiciary has
more power but hamilton disagrees there
is no position which depends on clearer
principles than that every act of a
delegated authority contrary to the
tenor of the commission under which it
is exercised is void no legislative act
therefore contrary to the constitution
can be valid in other words if the
legislature passes a law which violates
the constitution it is already null and
void because no unconstitutional law can
be binding on a people governed by the
constitution in that way the courts were
designed to be an intermediate body
between the people and the legislature
in order among other things to keep the
legislature within the limits assigned
to their authority and then he goes on
to explain why the scenario does not
give the judicial branch undue power nor
does this conclusion by any means
suppose a superiority of the judicial to
the legislative power it only supposes
that the power of the people is superior
to both and that where the will of the
legislature declared in statute stands
in opposition to that of the people
declared in the constitution the judges
ought to be governed by the latter
rather than the former so to summarize
lifetime appointments for federal judges
are necessary to keep them independent
and unreliant on popular will and the
judicial branch's power of judicial
review does not make the federal court
system more powerful than the
legislature but rather balances and
checks it okay that's what you need to
know about federalist 78 if you need
help getting an a in your class and a
five on your exam may then click right
here and grab review packet if you want
to give me a lifetime appointment to
help you in your ap classes then by all
means subscribe and i
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
The JUDICIAL Branch [AP Gov Review Unit 2 Topic 8 (2.8)]
Article III For Dummies: The Judiciary Explained
🌍 La ORGANIZACIÓN POLÍTICA de ESPAÑA para niños
Poder Judiciário - Atualizado 0 EC 122/2022 (Direito Constitucional): Resumo Completo
Walkthrough of the Constitution | Constitution 101
Supreme Court Stories: Marbury v. Madison
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)