Summary Of Federalist No. 78 By Alexander Hamilton

In 1800, the presidential election between Adams and Jefferson was a tie, and the government almost broke down. The Supreme Court had no clear purpose or power no one had even thought to build it a courtroom in the new capital city. The book tells the thrilling story of Marbury v. Madison, through which he empowered the Supreme Court and transformed the idea of the separation of powers into a working blueprint for our modern state (The Great Decision). Marbury v. Madison was certainly an integral part of this early stage in American history, but the authors seem to focus more on the actions of Jefferson, Adams, and Marshall. When President Thomas Jefferson took workplace as third president of the U.S., it painted the transfer of powerfulness

Federalist Paper 69, written by Alexander Hamilton in 1788, addresses the topic of the presidency. Its purpose was to illustrate to the people of New York what the real character of the executive would be. The subject matter and time period of this essay allow for speculation that the people of that time were concerned that ratifying a constitution with a president at the head of government would have been willingly putting themselves beneath a tyrannical ruler, after having recently gained independence from tyrannical King George III. Throughout this essay, Hamilton adamantly stressed the fact that the president would not be likened unto the king of Great Britain, but rather unto the governor of New York. The president would be an elected

Chapter 1 Thesis: The decisions that the supreme court makes helps define the United States, so to help gain political advantage the president uses thought and strategy when appointing. Evidence pg 14

When a men rule over other men, that can be dangerous and even deadly. The government must control the governed and control itself (Madison 1). A nation’s administration must depend on people for its direction, but there are some reservations that must be maintained. Two views are presented about why the federal system of America should follow a constitution. The first is that usurpations are protected with the division and distinctions in governmental departments (Madison 2).

He concluded it did not. The Court having also found that the Judicial Act of 1789 was unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Marshall was refusing to have the Court enter into a political issue on “the grounds that Congress could not constitutionally grant to the Court powers not authorized by the Constitution.” Thus this case established Judicial

Marbury v Madison The case of Marbury v. Madison will always be considered one of the most important cases ever decide by the Supreme Court. The Court’s ruling has been discussed and examined by many law scholars throughout the world. This essay summarizes the case and explains the implications of it regarding the powers of the Judicial Branch.

John Marshall was born in 1756 and grew up near Germantown, Virginia. He was homeschooled by his mother and lived an unassuming life before deciding to fight in the Revolutionary War when he turned 20. Marshall became an officer in the Continental Army befriending General George Washington. He left the military to study law in 1780, eventually becoming the head of the Supreme Court. John Marshall’s work in the Supreme Court instituted new principles such as final interpretation of the constitution, the grandfather principle, and the process of judicial review into the the parameters of the Judicial Branch’s abilities.

The new president of the Supreme Court John Marshall understands that if the Supreme Court of Justice emits a writ of mandamus (i.e., an order to force Madison to deliver the Commission), the administration of Jefferson could ignore such order and therefore would significantly weaken the seven authorities of the courts. On the other hand, if the Court rejected the appeal, it would seem that the judges had acted out of fear. Either case would be a denial of the basic principle of the supremacy of the law. In contrast, Marshall found a common

During the Jeffersonian Era, Thomas Jefferson declared that all Americans were Federalists, and Republicans which he claimed that Americans were diverse once he became president. John Marshall, who was Jefferson’s cousin strengthened the government. Through Marbury v. Madison in 1803 where he suggested that the Supreme Court should have judicial review which strengthened perspectives on whether a case was constitutional or not. For the McCulloch v. Maryland case, Marshall gave power of “loose construction” to interpret the constitution in court. Around 1811, Indians were also coexisting with the Americans, the Americans wanted all the land to themselves without having Indians on it so a war in 1812 was initiated which also demonstrated America’s

Madison is best known as the landmark case in which the U.S. Supreme Court established judicial review. As a result of this case, the federal judiciary was strengthened, thus empowering federal courts to declare legislation, as well as executive and administrative actions, unconstitutional. The court consisted of six men, chief justice John Marshall, justice Alfred Moore, justice William Cushing, justice Bushrod Washington, and justice Samuel Chase. Furthermore, chief justice John Marshall remarkably won the war at the end of the case by establishing the supreme court as the final arbiter of the meaning of the constitution. “Marshall declared for the first time an act of Congress signed into law by the president as unconstitutional.

John Marshall, the fourth chief of justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, became perhaps the nation’s “most illustrious judicial figure” according to Charles Evans Hughes (Simon, 2012). He was strongly committed to the need to create a strong and effective government. Marshall quickly became a prominent political figure of the Federalist Party in the 1790’s, and in early 1801, he was appointed to the Supreme Court by President John Adams. On assuming his duties, Chief Justice John Marshall took immediate action to strengthen the power of the Court (Fox, 2006). He raised the United States Supreme Court from an anomalous position to majesty and power.

Rather, the United States’ judicial system should remain impartial and consistent while interpreting the laws as they are written. Also, the Constitution is not an optional document to reference, rather, it is our nation’s original rule book by which the judicial system should base its decisions and interpretations on. As one of the most influential and transformative justices of his time, Justice Scalia’s vision for the Constitution included that of which it is to nail things down so they would last. Although our nation is constantly changing, the Constitution must remain the foundation of our existence as a sovereign nation, and the document itself must not be loosely interpreted and disregarded by flawed and power-hungry justices. To maintain the integrity of our judicial system and maintain a prosperous future for America, it is important we follow Justice Scalia’s vision and leave the Constitution as it was when it was first adopted, while also not repeatedly ignoring and broadly misinterpreting

Federalist Paper 70 discusses the importance of a high energy, single executive. Hamilton argues that when there is more than one person in charge, differences in opinions are inevitable. There must be a single executive, however, it should be up to the legislature to make large decisions, “though [the differences of opinions] may sometimes obstruct salutary plans, yet often promote deliberation and circumspection, and serve to check excesses in the majority.” Through this, most decisions will be made by winning the majority of the legislature, who represent the American citizens better as a whole. These branches will ensure that there is no abuse of power at any level of the

The Court is able to check both the legislative and executive branches by overturning laws or actions taken by either branch if the justices believe that the branch is not acting in accordance with the Constitution or if an act contradicts the words of the Constitution (“The Constitution,” 27). Although this could make the judicial branch appear superior to the other branches of government, Rosenberg’s arguments in The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? show that this is not the case, especially when it comes to social reform. With judicial review, the Supreme Court can freely make important and sometimes controversial decisions with its interpretations of the law. However, the decisions are almost meaningless unless one of the other branches takes action to implement the Court’s rulings, which serves as a check on the

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