Transcription
Hey everybody. Welcome back. Federal 70 is all about the courts, so use your gav to smash that like button and let's do it.
All right, so Federal number 78 is all about the judicial branch. In fact, let's cut right to the chase and start with the main idea of the essay. Alexander Hamilton is arguing in favor of giving life tenure to federal judges to maintain an independent Judiciary that can exercise the power of judicial review. But stay with me, because we need to discuss each element of this argument that Hamilton makes throughout the paper.
Hamilton begins by acknowledging three important concerns people have raised about the Judiciary: how federal judges are appointed, their tenure in office, and the role of the Judiciary in the system of separation of powers and checks and balances. He chooses not to discuss the first concern here, but we remember that presidents nominate federal judges and they are confirmed by the Senate.
Turning our attention to their tenure, he says that all federal judges are to hold their offices during good behavior. It would have been nice if he'd been a bit more specific, but it means that there aren't term limits and there aren't elections. They don't hold office for 2 years, or 4 years, or 6 years like Representatives, the president, or Senators. Rather, they have their job as long as they have good behavior, which realistically means as long as they aren't impeached and removed from office. Hamilton argues that this is a really important constitutional feature, saying that life tenure is the best barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the legislative branch. Keep that in mind, because we'll come back to the idea that Congress is the most dangerous branch in a minute. But if we keep going, the next sentence says that life tenure is the best way to have a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws. The key word here is impartial. So now we should have at least two questions: What's Hamilton's argument for how life tenure leads to an impartial Judiciary? And hang on, isn't life tenure for judges undemocratic? After all, we're talking about people who weren't elected in the first place, and now they get to keep their job for life. That sounds like a lot of power.
Starting with the second question, Hamilton assures us there's nothing to worry about because the judicial branch is the least dangerous of the branches. The Judiciary has no power over sword nor purse; it doesn't have budget powers, war powers, or enforcement powers. It has neither force nor will, but merely judgment. Notice how he's diminishing the judiciary's power, implying that its power to make judgments isn't really that significant. But it is true that the court is unable to enforce its judgments and rulings and instead must rely on the executive to do so, just like Hamilton says. And this is a source of weakness for the court.
Now, the other question we had related to his claim about life tenure leading to an impartial administration of the law. To address this, Hamilton continues to focus on the weakness of the Court, saying the Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest branch of government and that it lacks the ability to be a threat to liberty. Well, there is one threat: Liberty would have everything to fear from the union of the judicial branch with either of the other two branches. So if either Congress or the president were to dominate the judicial branch, our liberty would be greatly threatened. In other words, we must have an independent Judiciary. Think of it this way: If federal judges knew that the president or Congress could remove them from office if they disliked the rulings the court made, well, what would judges do? They might naturally be inclined to rule in favor of the president, even when they're doing something wrong, even when they're going against the Constitution. If they don't, they'll get fired, and then they'll just be replaced with a lackey who will do whatever the other branches want them to do. At this point, we might as well not even have a Judiciary in our system of checks and balances, since it wouldn't be doing anything to limit the two stronger branches.
Hamilton says that nothing contributes to judicial independence as much as permanence in office. So by giving federal judges life tenure, they don't need to worry about pleasing Congress or the president. They can criticize the court all they want, but since judges don't have to fear them, they can do their job and rule properly and defend the Constitution. And a huge part of defending the Constitution means that the Judiciary must have the power of judicial review; they must be able to strike down laws and actions that go contrary to the Constitution. In fact, it's the duty of the Court to declare all acts contrary to the Constitution void. Without this, all the rights and privileges in the Constitution would amount to nothing. All those nice words in the Constitution that set up a limited government and protect people's rights wouldn't mean anything unless there's a Judiciary that strikes down laws and actions that go against the Constitution. The Constitution would cease to limit government, and it certainly wouldn't protect individual rights. This is Hamilton explicitly arguing in favor of the power of judicial review for the Supreme Court. You may recall that judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution, but Hamilton is arguing that the framers had every intention that the court would, in fact, have this power. He reasons that the Constitution is, and must be regarded as, the supreme law of the land. If Congress were to pass a law contrary to the Constitution and that law weren't struck down, it would imply that Congress was above the Constitution, and this defeats the whole notion of limited government. As he says, no legislative act that's contrary to the Constitution can be valid. So, according to Hamilton, the job of the Judiciary is to protect the Constitution from Congress. Congress is the real threat to the Constitution through their lawmaking power. Congress might, at times, make laws that go against the Constitution, but the courts are the bulwark of the Constitutional promise of limited government, meaning that they are the guards; they protect and defend the Constitution through the use of judicial review. And to do that reliably, federal judges require permanence in office to maintain judicial independence that Hamilton says is essential to so arduous a duty.
So one more time for the people in the back: Federal judges must have life tenure to maintain an independent Judiciary that exercises the power of judicial review in defense of the Constitution and limited government.
And with that, we are done with Federal Papers until next time. This has been All The Money Production. Thanks again for watching. I appreciate you so much. And if you want to do your best in class and on the exam, consider checking out the ultimate review packet: three full-length practice tests, great study guides, tons of practice for each unit, and exclusive FRQ help and practice. Preview unit one for free, and I will see you in the next video.