Did federalists support judicial review?

Did federalists support judicial review?

Federalists answered that the judicial department was the "least hazardous" of the three branches since it simply possessed the power of judgment. Judicial review was one of the topics that was not hotly disputed, because all parties agreed that the judiciary would use this power under the new Constitution. The Federalist Papers also indicated that the courts should be given a wide scope of action because the entire body of law could not be reviewed in every case.

In fact, several leading figures in the Constitutional Convention advocated judicial review. John Jay wrote the most extensive argument in favor of giving the courts this power. He said that it was necessary because Congress was too weak to protect its own statutes by suing violators. He also argued that without such a power, the government would be unable to govern at all: "A declaration that its acts are unconstitutional would be a complete nullity; and if there were no method of appealing from such a decision, the government would be destroyed."

James Madison agreed with these views and went even further by saying that any law that violated the principles of liberty and republicanism was automatically invalid. This means that anyone who is interested in preserving freedom in America should want judicial review because it provides an extra check on the other two branches of the government.

In conclusion, federalists supported judicial review because they believed it was necessary for the health of our government.

What does Federalist 78 say about the judiciary?

Hamilton said in Federalist No. 78 that the planned government's judicial department would be the weakest of the three branches because it lacked independence "I have no control over either the sword or the purse. It is true that it has neither FORCE nor WILL, but just JUDGMENT." No. 1 Federalist paper written by Alexander Hamilton defending the Constitution against attacks by John Jay and James Madison.

Judges cannot be elected by the public but must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The judges can also not be removed from office except by death, resignation, or impeachment.

All laws which are not expressly prohibited by the Constitution may be adopted by Congress. The only limitation on this power is that laws may not violate the Constitution itself. For example, the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with other countries and among the states, but this does not mean that every law relating to commerce is automatically valid under the Constitution. There are many laws on the books which would be unconstitutional if they were not for the fact that they were once found to be necessary in order to combat violations of other rights protected by the Constitution.

The federal courts were established by the Judiciary Act of 1789 to check any abuses of power by the other two branches of the government. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what powers the Congress has under the Constitution and whether those powers include the ability to do something.

When was the power of judicial review established?

Judicial review is an essential component of the idea of balance of power, which is based on a system of "checks and balances" between the three departments of the federal government. In the 1803 Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison, the power of judicial review was created. The court ruled that it has the authority to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress.

How did the power of judicial review come about? During the founding years of the United States, the main method for dealing with unconstitutional actions by the executive branch or legislative branch was through impeachment. If found guilty, officials would lose their jobs. However, some high-profile cases came before the courts without any formal mechanism for doing so. For example, in 1798 President John Adams's administration attempted to regulate trade with France by imposing tariffs on items imported from France. The Supreme Court at the time was made up of judges who were elected by Congress, so not all of them were expected to rule against Congress's actions. In fact, several supported the administration's position that it had the right to regulate foreign commerce. However, in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, one judge did find against the administration's position and used his ruling to establish the power of judicial review. From then on, if there was a conflict between what Congress passed into law and what the Constitution allowed, the judges could use their power of judicial review to prevent illegal actions by the legislature.

About Article Author

Lisa Pybus

Lisa Pybus is a journalist who writes about the issues that people face in today's world. She likes to think of himself as an advocate for those who can't speak up for themselves. She has written extensively on topics such as the economy, politics, culture, and environment.

Disclaimer

OnlySlightlyBiased.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Related posts