π Understanding Federalist No. 78 and Judicial Review
Federalist No. 78, penned by Alexander Hamilton, is a foundational document in American constitutional law, primarily defending the concept of judicial review. Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine laws and actions of the legislative and executive branches and to determine whether such acts are constitutional. This essay addresses concerns raised by the Anti-Federalists regarding the power of the judiciary in the proposed Constitution.
π Historical Context and Background
- π°οΈ Pre-Constitution: Before the Constitution, the idea of judicial review was debated, but not firmly established in practice at the national level. Some state courts had asserted similar powers.
- βοΈ Constitutional Convention: The framers considered the role of the judiciary extensively during the Constitutional Convention, leading to Article III which outlines the judicial branch's powers.
- π’ Anti-Federalist Concerns: Anti-Federalists feared the judiciary would become too powerful and encroach upon the powers of the other branches.
βοΈ Key Principles Argued in Federalist No. 78 (Arguments FOR Judicial Review)
- π‘οΈ Protecting the Constitution: Hamilton argues that judicial review is essential to protect the Constitution from legislative acts that contradict it. The judiciary serves as an intermediary between the people and the legislature to ensure the latter doesn't overstep its bounds.
- π― Limited Government: Judicial review ensures a limited government by setting boundaries on what the legislative and executive branches can do. Without it, the legislature could effectively amend the Constitution through ordinary legislation.
- π¨ββοΈ Judicial Independence: Hamilton emphasizes the importance of an independent judiciary, achieved through lifetime appointments during good behavior. This independence is crucial for judges to impartially review laws without fear of reprisal from the other branches.
- π Constitution as Fundamental Law: The Constitution is the fundamental law of the nation. Any legislative act contrary to the Constitution is void. The judiciaryβs role is to uphold the Constitution.
- π§ββοΈ Protecting Minority Rights: Judicial review safeguards the rights of minorities against the potential tyranny of the majority in the legislature.
π€ Addressing Arguments AGAINST Judicial Review (Hamilton's Rebuttals)
- ποΈ Not Superior to Legislature: Hamilton clarifies that judicial review doesn't make the judiciary superior to the legislature. It simply means that when there's a conflict between the Constitution and a legislative act, the Constitution, as the fundamental law, must prevail.
- βοΈ No Legislative Will Subversion: The judiciary is interpreting the law and applying it to specific cases, not substituting its will for that of the legislature.
- π€ Least Dangerous Branch: Hamilton famously describes the judiciary as the "least dangerous branch" because it has neither the power of the purse (like the legislature) nor the power of the sword (like the executive). Its power lies in its judgment.
- π Specialized Knowledge: Judges are presumed to have specialized knowledge in interpreting laws and constitutions, making them well-suited to the task of judicial review.
π Real-world Examples of Judicial Review
- ποΈ *Marbury v. Madison* (1803): This landmark Supreme Court case, although not explicitly mentioned in Federalist No. 78 (as the essay predates the case), is the quintessential example of judicial review in action. The Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, declared a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, establishing the principle of judicial review.
- βοΈ *Brown v. Board of Education* (1954): The Supreme Court declared state-sponsored segregation in public schools unconstitutional, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine established in *Plessy v. Ferguson* (1896). This demonstrated the judiciary's power to correct past injustices and ensure equal protection under the law.
- π³οΈ *Citizens United v. FEC* (2010): The Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as individuals, and therefore, the government cannot restrict their independent political spending in candidate elections.
π Conclusion
Federalist No. 78 provides a powerful defense of judicial review, arguing that it is essential for maintaining a limited government, protecting the Constitution, and safeguarding the rights of individuals. While debates surrounding the scope and application of judicial review continue to this day, Hamilton's arguments remain central to understanding its role in the American constitutional system.