I am responding to Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78. In this essay, he discusses aspects of what would later make up the United States government’s judicial branch. One of the arguments he makes is that Congress asserts the right to shoot down legislation from Congress that conflicts with the Constitution. I think Hamilton is right in his position on whether the Supreme Court can exercise judicial review without it being in the Constitution. One of the reasons I agree with him is because of the analogies he gives that make logical sense to me, such as the servant being above the master being a parallel to the representatives of a people being above the people themselves. This is logical to me because without a system in place to make
…show more content…
One example is if Congress passed legislation that bans the use of free speech on the Internet. Keeping in mind that this is a hypothetical (and most unlikely) case, and with the executive branch in agreement with this law (the hypothetical president would not veto the bill), this would mean for several things. First, the law would most definitely be in disagreement with the Constitution, which protects civil liberties. Also, there would be no way to directly fight this law imposed on the nation. I also agree with this argument because it makes sense that the judiciary branch gets this power; without judicial review, the Supreme Court would be too weakest of the three branches. I do not think Hamilton left out much when making this argument, he made a very good case on how the judiciary branch preserves the Constitution. I would also say that his point was strong, but was not strong enough to mitigate further debates about the matter, with few of our nation’s presidents, including Jefferson and Lincoln, who disagree with Hamilton’s view. This essay clearly relates to several readings that we have covered. While in this essay discussed several aspects of the judiciary branch and argued its place in our government, in Federalist No. 10 and No. 51 several other aspects of how our government should be made would was discussed. They include how federal power would
One example is if Congress passed legislation that bans the use of free speech on the Internet. Keeping in mind that this is a hypothetical (and most unlikely) case, and with the executive branch in agreement with this law (the hypothetical president would not veto the bill), this would mean for several things. First, the law would most definitely be in disagreement with the Constitution, which protects civil liberties. Also, there would be no way to directly fight this law imposed on the nation. I also agree with this argument because it makes sense that the judiciary branch gets this power; without judicial review, the Supreme Court would be too weakest of the three branches. I do not think Hamilton left out much when making this argument, he made a very good case on how the judiciary branch preserves the Constitution. I would also say that his point was strong, but was not strong enough to mitigate further debates about the matter, with few of our nation’s presidents, including Jefferson and Lincoln, who disagree with Hamilton’s view. This essay clearly relates to several readings that we have covered. While in this essay discussed several aspects of the judiciary branch and argued its place in our government, in Federalist No. 10 and No. 51 several other aspects of how our government should be made would was discussed. They include how federal power would