Hamilton examines the judiciary department of the proposed government to determine their role as established by the US Constitution. He made two significant arguments in defense of the judiciary. First, he supported the independence of the judiciary to be separate from the other two branches of government (Levinson, 2018). Secondly, he established that the judiciary must be authorized and endowed to reject laws made by Congress that it considers not productive in signifying the strength of the constitution. The framers of the constitution involved both the president and the Senate in the selection process so that there is reduced partisanship during the election of the judges to protect them from having to campaign in the same way politicians do (Grove, 2019).
Hamilton believed that the judiciary would be the most dangerous branch. This is because the independence and empowerment of the judiciary had not been achieved. The judiciary lacked the sword of the executive, who is the commander in chief of the country’s armed forces. They even lacked the support of the legislature who could have favored them by approving tax and spending measures of the national government (Samahon, 2016). The judiciary was the weakest of the three since it did not have force or will but simply judgment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Hamilton is right because the independence of the judiciary is critical. It is when it is independent and is getting reinforcement from the legislature and the executive that it could fulfill its major purpose in a constitutional government. The judiciary must be empowered to cancel laws that were unconstitutional and infringed the specific rights and privileges of the citizens. Judicial elections make judges less accountable to the people as much as they should (Levinson, 2018). It has led to a compromise of the integrity of justice systems as many seek for money to the campaign. This tendency together with fundraising weakens the confidence in having a fair and neutral judicial system. The rule of law that is supposed to be retained is broken completely by the members of the judicial system themselves.
References
Grove, J. G. (2019). The Federalist on the Public Will: The Split Personality Revisited . Polity, 51(1), 95-125.
Levinson, S. (2018). Alexander Hamilton and the Development of American Law.
Samahon, T. N. (2016). No Praise for Process Federalism: The Political Safeguards Mirage and the Necessity of Substantial, Substantive Judicial Review . Vill. L. Rev., 61, 605.
