Federalist No. 78 By Alexander Hamilton

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton lays out his vision for how the Supreme Court of the United States should function. In it, he assures that one of the key roles of the Supreme Court will be to check the constitutionality of congressional legislation in order to protect the individual rights of the people. However, in his opinion for the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall interprets the power of judicial review from Article III of the constitution, in a way in which the court becomes a powerful branch of government. With Marshall’s interpretation, the court is able to “strike down” legislation by the command of the people which is embedded in the Constitution (O’Brien 173). Hamilton intended for the court to

He discusses the importance of appointing Supreme Court justices to a life tenure. He did not want the justices to be influenced by political climates and elections. This would allow justices full freedom from political pressure. One of the reasons cited by Hamilton on the advantage of life tenure is that it will “keep honest people” interested in the job (Federalist No. 78). His reason for making life tenure appointments was that it takes years of legal scholarship to understand and interpret the laws written by Congress. Had the court appointments been made temporary many people would have been discouraged to give up successful careers in law and politics. Adding good behavior as a requirement would ensure that the court would function as an independent body and protect people’s individual rights. Hamilton envisioned the court as the weakest of the three branches of government with few functions: the power to judge, and to relegate all actions upon which court decisions have been made to the authority of the president (Federalist No.

Madison, which he wrote. Both Hamilton and Marshall felt that the court had the judicial authority under Article III of the constitution to declare void any legislation that would contradict it (O’Brien 174, 175). However, in his efforts to cement the Supreme Court as a powerful branch of government, Marshall decided to make his own interpretation of the constitution with no case precedent. The method used by Marshall was the principle of common law review, a practice rooted in English legal thought (O’Brien 24). In the Marbury case, William Marbury was denied his appointment as a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, by Secretary of State James Madison. Marbury was appointed as Justice of the Peace in the final hours of the Adams administration. Marbury’s commission was not delivered on time. Since the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver his commission Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver his appointment. The appointment was signed and sealed by President Adams, but not delivered. Coincidentally, Marshall was the Secretary of State under President Adams, and charged with delivery of Marbury’s commission (Marbury v.