Quotes
1) Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. 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 truly 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.
I find it interesting that what we talked about in class was directly mentioned in the Federalist papers (although I shouldn't be so surprised)... I also love the metaphors that Hamilton uses here. The Executive branch, the branch that enforces the law, holds the "sword" - the thing that puts it in a lot of power. The legislative branch, the branch that makes the law, commands the "purse" (the money of the United States) as well as has the power to make laws. However, I found the last part strange. While it is true that the Supreme Court has no influence over either "the sword or the purse," it still has force - force against the legislative branch. It can declare laws or acts unconstitutional. Also, they may declare treaties unconstitutional. I like to think of the Supreme Court as passive-aggressive...
2) 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.
The judicial branch "can never attack with success either of the other two"? But what about the idea of checks and balances? This sentence contradicts the ideas of 3 equal branches that Madison put out before.
3) No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
These sentences highlighted how much power the Constitution has. It is also a little scary because our whole government, our whole foundation, is under this "piece of paper"; Hamilton's words imply that the government and technically the people are servants to a document.
3) The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.
This sentence firmly establishes that the Supreme Court is supposed to review the cases in a objective manner, not a subjective manner.
4) But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society.
This reminds me of the idea that the Supreme Court is their own entity, separate from the others. That is the reason why they are appointed for life. They may not be as easily corrupted, nor may they have to concern themselves with elections... Instead of carrying out their own beliefs, they are supposed to enforce (if that is the correct word?) the "will" of the Constitution.
5) That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission.
For some reason, I really like this quote. It gives a sense that seniority is a good thing because one is more experienced in what they are doing; their knowledge is "indispensable" to something that is significant.
Questions
1) If the three branches were supposed to check and balance each other, therefore being equal in power, what about the judicial branch, which was the "weakest"?
2) How can one make sure that the judges are not being biased to their party?
3) How would people be picked as a nominee for a judge?
4) Would "judicial review" be against the FFs' wishes? (Did it give the courts too much power?)
5) Why would the court be the go-between for the legislature and the people?
No comments:
Post a Comment