Summary Of Federalist No. 78

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton lays out his vision for the Supreme Court of the United States. In this essay, Hamilton explains that the court should function as a “bulwark against majoritarian excesses,” (O’Brien 181) to protect the rights of the minority, from the tyranny of the majority. Hamilton makes the assurance that the court will use separation of powers as a “check” on Congress in order to protect against popular will (O’Brien 22). To accomplish this, the court had to function as an independent body to “safeguard” against “occasional ill humors in the society,” (O’Brien 349) in the event that popular will was harmful to the minority. Conversely, in his opinion for the Marbury v. Madison case, Chief Justice John Marshall

78. He discusses the importance of creating a court independent from the democratic process of election (O’Brien 175). One of his arguments was that an independent court would be uninfluenced by political climates and elections. Furthermore, Hamilton argues that the independence of Justices would safeguard against popular will (O’Brien 349, Federalist No. 78). Hamilton also discusses the importance of appointing Supreme Court Justices to a life tenure. A life tenure appointment would allow Justices full freedom from political pressure. One of the reasons was that it will keep honest people interested in the job (Federalist No. 78). Moreover, in Federalist No. 78, Hamilton justifies the importance of life tenure by arguing that it takes years of legal scholarship to interpret legislation. If court appointments were temporary, many people would be discouraged. Judicial candidates would not want to give up successful careers in law or politics. The standard for Hamilton’s life tenure argument was good behavior. For Hamilton, good behavior was of great value because it would be a “barrier to the encroachments” of the “representative body,” (O’Brien 345, 346, Federalist No. 78) meaning that Justices would be able to protect the people from

Rehnquist argues that Marshall saw the constitution, not only as a document, but as a “charter” that represented the will of the people (O’Brien 166). However, the argument made by Rehnquist reinforces Marshall’s interpretation of judicial review as the will of the majority. By comparison, Judge William Justice takes a different approach from Rehnquist on the interpretation of Judicial review. Judge Justice argues that Hamilton’s intention was for the court to be a “bulwark” against “Majoritarian excesses,” (O’Brien 181) so as to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Likewise, Hamilton saw the same principle of the court as a “bulwark” against congress. As pointed out by Judge Justice, it was an “excellent barrier” to the “encroachments of the representative body,” (O’Brien 175) because of the court’s independence from