ipl-logo

Judicial Branch Pros And Cons

477 Words2 Pages

Alexander Hamilton believed that the judicial branch is the least dangerous branch for several reasons. Perhaps Hamilton felt it is the least dangerous of the three branches of government because it does not make the laws as the legislative branch does; it simply interprets the laws that have been passed by the legislative branch and that have been approved by the executive branch. Also, there was little concern that the judiciary might be able to overpower the political branches; since Congress controlled the flow of money and the President the military, courts did not have nearly the same influence from a constitutional design standpoint. The effects of this is that the president and congress do have some control over the judiciary branch with their power to appoint and confirm appointments of judges and justice. Congress also may impeach judges which is very rare, alter the organization of the federal court system, and amend the Constitution. …show more content…

To protect the rights that the judiciary must be given the power of judicial review to declare as null and void laws that it deems unconstitutional. People of the Constitution claimed that judicial review gave the judiciary power superior to that of the legislative branch. Hamilton argues that both branches are inferior to the power of the people and that the judiciary's role is to ensure that the legislature remains a servant of the Constitution and the people who created it, not a master. Even though judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
The main purpose of a judicial branch per Hamilton is to "declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void", meaning to rule any laws or policies not in accordance with the Constitution, unconstitutional. He also states that they serve a purpose as an intermediate body between the people and the legislative branch, to check the legislature's

Open Document