Differences Between Hamilton V. 78

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 declare null legislation if it contradicts the constitution. Hamilton did not intend for the court to have the power to nullify legislation, but

The court was charged with the protection of these liberties as an independent body able to declare violations of the constitution from Congress. Hamilton made the assurance in Federalist No. 78 that ultimately the constitution will be the supreme law of the land and that the court would respect the will of the people. He explains the court as the arbiter between Congress and the people. Therefore, the courts will check Congress by making sure the laws written by them did not abuse the power granted to them under the constitution. For Hamilton, the purpose of judicial review was for the court to eventually place the will of the people above both Congress and the court. From his perspective, the court would focus on interpreting the constitutionality of the laws written by Congress in the light of the constitution. Hamilton’s sole purpose was to protect people from tyranny. In other words, the court’s job was not to impose their will on Congress, but to make sure laws were being written to respect people’s basic constitutional rights. Hamilton also purposed for the court to function as a protector from political factions within the political parties that might arise. He knew that special interest groups would attempt to pass certain legislation to benefit their self-interest. In order to protect people’s individual rights from the corruption of

78 have been negated, given the power the Supreme Court established in the Marbury v. Madison Decision. Hamilton never intended for the court to have the power to nullify congressional legislation through judicial review. He simply intended for the court to interpret the laws written by Congress in order to preserve the individual rights of the people. The protection of these rights over the will of congress and the court itself was Hamilton’s main vision. He’s purpose was to safeguard the people from a tyrannical government. Nevertheless, Chief Justice John Marshall, through his genius was able bring the judicial branch on par with the legislative and executive branches with the self-imposed power of judicial review. With a masterful legal opinion in the Marbury case, Marshall created a system of common law review, which set the legal standard for future cases like Dred Scott v. Sanford and Brown v. Board of Education (O’Brien 167). The outcome of these cases has impacted the lives of Americans over the years. People’s will and desire has evolved over time, from a racially structured society in the 1800’s to the civil rights movement of the 1950’s. The moral views of Americans have changed over time, with a positive collective will. Although the current state of the court is not Hamilton’s blueprint design, Marshall’s opinion in the Marbury case has performed Hamilton’s main desire; the