Federalist No. 78 Analysis

I Agree… “The Federalist No. 84” and “The Anti-Federalist No.84”, both have their views on what should happen to our government. Whether it is to add a bill of rights or not, but I agree with the writer of “The Federalist No.84” because if the Constitution is adopted, then it will be our Bill of Rights, also based on other countries’ bill of rights then it may argue with a semblance of reason. Because I have read both sides of the discussion, I can see who is wrong and why.

There was discussion of judicial review in Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton, which explained that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. Hamilton stated that under the Constitution, the federal judiciary would have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. He also stated that this was appropriate because it would protect the people against abuse of power by Congress.

In light of recent events in our country, there has been no better time in our history than the present to illustrate how Madison was a visionary in supporting the Constitution via his Federalist Number 10 argument. The removal or defacement of Confederate statues by those other than government employees is prime example of his argument. Despite the sometimes illegal removal and resultant damage, the persons responsible continue to wreak havoc in local communities and do not appear to be suffering any consequences from the federal government. National polls conducted just last month revealed a majority of Americans do not approve of removing Confederate monuments. In spite of this, statues have been removed and damage caused to them by

Read Federalist 10 and answer the following questions? What are factions? Groups of people that hold a certain belief or have an idea different from other groups.

1787 was a time of change for government, and everyone had an opinion for how things should be ran. When James Madison wrote the Federalist Papers, Number 10 was about parties in government, or as he called them, “factions”. Madison says that an advantage of a “well constructed Union” would be the ability to “break and control the violence of faction”, yet he goes on to say that you cannot remove factions without removing liberty, and that will never happen. He said the only option was to try and control faction’s effects. In paragraph 8, he says that “the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail”; in other words, the most popular party with the majority of people and influence is expected to prevail over the minority party.

In both the McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden cases, John Marshall asserted the power of judicial review, and legitimatized the Supreme Court within the national government. The Marshall Court, over the span of thirty years, managed to influence the life of every American by aiding in the development of the judicial branch and establishing a boundary between the state and national government. John Marshall’s Supreme Court cases shaped how the government is organized today. He strongly believed in Federalism, and that the national government should be sovereign, rather than the states. The Supreme Court under John

Jonah Brenner Federalist Paper 33 Alexander Hamilton begins Federalist Paper 33 by stating the following clauses: The Constitution authorizes the national legislature “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” Also “the Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” These two clauses have been subject to intense accusations against the

The Federalist No. 10” is a persuasive argument written by James Madison in an attempt to ratify the Constitution. He wrote a series of documents called the Federalist Papers under a pseudonym to convince others to approve of the Constitution. He says that factions are not good for America, neither is a pure democracy. Madison provides extensive arguments and remedies for the problems he is addressing. James Madison is attempting to ratify the Constitution by analyzing the way to deal with factions, comparing a republic to a democracy, and by comparing a small government to a large government.

The Federalist Papers were, and still are, very important to American History. These series of essays, mostly written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, were published to persuade Americans to ratify the new constitution. The new constitution would replace the Articles of Confederation, what the American’s had been living under at the time. The constitution highlighted an issue that the articles did not; empowering the central government like never before. Allowing the central government to act in the interest of the United States.

Following the ratification of the United States’ Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison compiled a list of letters to provide more information to the American public. These letters, also known as the Federalist Papers, detail the specifics regarding branches of government, status of citizenship, and the democratic role of the people.  Federalist Paper No. 67, titled the Executive Department and written by Alexander Hamilton, focuses on the powers of the executive branch and calms the fears of the doubtful citizens. In addition, it provides information on the executive branch’s responsibilities and ways to increase the overall effectiveness of running an admirable government for the newly-independent United States of America.

Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.

Wainwright illustrated the importance of personal rights guaranteed by the constitution. This case began when Clarence Gideon was denied a court appointed lawyer to represent him in a petty crime case. Gideon, unable to afford his own lawyer, was unable to adequately defend himself and consequently was convicted. However, he was undeterred. Gideon then wrote a letter to the Supreme Court to overturn this conviction with the 6th Amendment as his evidence of the court’s misconduct.

In the Federalist Paper number 51, Madison writes to the people of New York to explain that it is necessary for a separation of powers between the departments of the government. Madison, with the help of Hamilton, wrote the Federalist Papers to explain sections of the Constitution. In Federalist Paper number 51, Madison explains that the government does not have a strong structure on the outside, but creating a firm structure within the government could be a solution. The firmer structure would be the separation of powers. In order for the people to get a better idea and make a more accurate judgement about the separation of powers, Madison shares observations and puts them into simpler terms.

Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is

Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.