When creating the Constitution in 1787, the constitutional framers were faced with the responsibility of crafting an improved judicial system after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. When analyzing the beginnings of the judicial power, we must necessarily look at the debates that took place between the federalists and the anti-federalists during the founding. Although the two sides had radically divergent views on the power and function of the judiciary, both sides agreed that a better system was needed than that provided by the Articles of Confederation. Between federalists and anti-federalists, the most notable debate was that of the power of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional. According to the draft Constitution, judges were appointed for life and their court decisions were not to be reviewed by any other governmental branch. As a result, Brutus fears that the decisions of the Supreme Court are "independent of heaven itself" in his essay Brutus XI. However, Alexander Hamilton asserts that the justice system will always be "the least dangerous" because the courts have neither "force nor will, but merely judgment." As we know, the Constitution was ratified despite anti-federalist concerns. However, many of the fears expressed in Brutus XI are still relevant today. As Brutus predicted, the Supreme Court has the ability to "shape the government into almost any shape it wants" because there is no "power above it to control its decisions." . Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton attempts to explain and clarify the structure of judicial power as proposed by the Constitution. In his examination of the judiciary, he addresses three main ideas: the crucial independence of the federal courts from other branches, permanent appointments, and the relationship of the judiciary to the other branches (establishing concepts of judicial review). Through his advocacy of the judiciary, Hamilton insisted that the courts must be empowered to strike down laws passed by Congress that it finds "contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution." To begin his argument, he addresses the proposed lifetime tenure for federal judges. Under the Constitution, federal judges are appointed by the government and hold their positions for the rest of their lives, provided they maintain “good conduct.” Acknowledging the contrasting opinion of critics, he explains that holding a position for life is the judiciary's most valuable asset. For example, tenure exempts federal judges from political pressure and further prohibits the executive and legislative branches from imposing judicial decisions. Furthermore, Hamilton believes that very few people will have the competence and integrity to judge the laws, and that those who are sufficiently competent in their office should be retained rather than replaced. Realizing that Anti-Federalists viewed the judiciary as a threat to their liberties, Hamilton asserted that the judiciary was by far "the weakest of the three departments of power" and "will always be the least dangerous to the political rights guaranteed by the Constitution." . Hamilton further explains that the federal courts have neither the "sword" of the executive branch, which is the commander in chief of the nation's armed forces, nor the "purse" of the legislative branch, which approves all tax measures and of national government spending. Once again, according toHamilton, the judiciary had “neither force nor will but simply judgment”. In short, as the court only has the power to judge, the judiciary relies on the other two powers to execute its decisions. Interestingly, Hamilton recognizes the possibility of courts treating individuals unfairly, but asserts that "the general liberty of the people can do so." never be put in danger” due to the weakness of the court. Another critical point highlights the limited powers of the court.Constitution. He explains that such a “limitation can only be preserved in practice through the courts.” Essentially, the Constitution's individual protections are worthless unless courts have the power to declare laws contrary to constitutional provisions. Furthermore, he reiterates that the Constitution must be considered a fundamental law. Continuing, he states that the Constitution represents the will of the people and that the legislature cannot reasonably replace its own will with the will of the people. It is therefore necessary to have a judiciary that governs according to the will of the people rather than that of legislators. Basically, Hamilton says that no branch is superior to another and that all branches are inferior to the power of the people. As an example of considering judges as a safeguard against legislative encroachment (also known as judicial review), Hamilton suggests a situation in which the public desires an unconstitutional law and the legislature accommodates it as well. The judiciary being independent of the other powers, it is required to uphold the Constitution in the best interest of the population in general. For the remainder of his essay, Hamilton revisits and strengthens his argument for lifetime appointments and judicial independence from other factions of government. In Brutus . So far, Brutus argues, the issue has so far received little attention. When it comes to the judiciary, Brutus has three main concerns. Above all, he wants the judicial powers to be specifically defined (affirming that the Constitution is too vague on the subject), he then criticizes the inability of the other powers to "control" the judicial power, and finally, he is concerned about political interference within the Court. To begin his essay, he deplores the complex terminology and confusing choice of words used by the drafters to delegate powers to the judiciary. He further emphasizes that the distinction between constitutional cases is not at all clear. That being said, he asserts that the judiciary will supplant the legislative branch in many cases because the court has the implied authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. Because of the court's power to interpret the Constitution, Brutus believed that the judiciary could do harm without the power of the "purse of the sword" mentioned in Federalist 78. Overall, Anti-Federalists believed that the judiciary would ultimately undermine the legislative power. as well as state government, because judges would interpret the Constitution in ways that would enhance their own power at the expense of individuals and state government. Brutus believed that because the powers of the judiciary are not strictly articulated, the court has the power to make laws in favor of the government; and therefore, judges had the power to shape the federal government indefinitely. For.”