Federalist 81. The Federalist 81 < The Complete Federalist Papers < 1786 2022-10-03
Federalist 81 Rating:
7,2/10
232
reviews
Federalist 81, also known as "The Powers of the Judiciary," is an essay written by Alexander Hamilton as part of the Federalist Papers. This essay discusses the role and powers of the judiciary branch of the United States government, as outlined in the Constitution.
In Federalist 81, Hamilton begins by discussing the importance of an independent and impartial judiciary. He argues that the judiciary is essential to protecting the rights and liberties of citizens, and that it is important for the judges to be insulated from external influences in order to remain objective and fair. Hamilton also notes that the judiciary serves as a check on the other branches of government, ensuring that they act within the limits of the Constitution.
Hamilton goes on to discuss the powers of the judiciary, including its ability to interpret the laws and Constitution. He argues that the judiciary should have the power to declare laws unconstitutional, as this helps to protect the principles of the Constitution and ensure that the government acts within its proper bounds.
Additionally, Hamilton discusses the structure of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. He argues that the Supreme Court should have the final say on matters of law, as this will help to create a uniform interpretation of the laws across the country.
Overall, Federalist 81 is a detailed and insightful analysis of the role and powers of the judiciary in the United States government. It highlights the importance of an independent and impartial judiciary in maintaining the rule of law and protecting the rights and liberties of citizens.
Bill of Rights: Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84, 575
Justice through them may be administered with ease and despatch; and appeals may be safely circumscribed within a narrow compass. How could recoveries be enforced? Those discussions would break down, and Wayne mobilized his Legion for combat along the distant western edges of the Ohio Country. Every reason which recommends the tenure of good behavior for judicial offices, militates against placing the judiciary power, in the last resort, in a body composed of men chosen for a limited period. However, for Hamilton, the fundamental point is that the people who make the law cannot also be trusted to always apply the law impartially. As an unexpected wrinkle, the western bank and New Orleans had been furtively given to Spain a year earlier. Also, a Union of states would act as a deterrent from aggression by nearby Foreign colonies. While the Jay Treaty was a reasonable compromise between the two contentious powers, American partisans balked at its passage.
The following train of ideas may well be imagined to have influenced the convention, in relation to this particular provision. Oxford University Press, 2008. It will not answer to make an express exception of cases which shall have been originally tried by a jury, because in the courts of some of the States all causes are tried in this mode 4; and such an exception would preclude the revision of matters of fact, as well where it might be proper, as where it might be improper. The mode of doing it may depend on ancient custom or legislative provision in a new government it must depend on the latter , and may be with or without the aid of a jury, as may be judged advisable. We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. In the former, the revision of the law only will be, generally speaking, the proper province of the Supreme Court; in the latter, the re-examination of the fact is agreeable to usage, and in some cases, of which prize causes are an example, might be essential to the preservation of the public peace.
Nor is there any thing in the proposed Constitution, more than in either of them, by which it is forbidden. Meeting at Fort Greenville in modern Ohio, Wayne orchestrated negotiations with dozens of native leaders from seventeen confederated tribes of the frontier. It is ridiculous to imagine that county courts were in contemplation. This plan appears to me at present the most eligible of any that could be adopted; and in order to it, it is necessary that the power of constituting inferior courts should exist in the full extent in which it is to be found in the proposed Constitution. The agreements were signed by aging sachems or Indian leaders of waning influence. But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. State courts, of course, should be allowed the utmost latitude in the field of their jurisdiction.
These reasons seem sufficient to satisfy a candid mind, that the want of such a power would have been a great defect in the plan. But why, it is asked, might not the same purpose have been accomplished by the instrumentality of the State courts? Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. The same spirit which had operated in making them, would be too apt in interpreting them; still less could it be expected that men who had infringed the Constitution in the character of legislators, would be disposed to repair the breach in the character of judges. It will not answer to make an express exception of cases which shall have been originally tried by a jury, because in the courts of some of the States all causes are tried in this mode fact, and that this jurisdiction shall be subject to such exceptions and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. It is therefore necessary that the appellate jurisdiction should, in certain cases, extend in the broadest sense to matters of fact. This results in one state having more power than the other s.
The Federalist Papers Essay 81 Summary and Analysis
The only question that seems to have been raised concerning it, is, whether it ought to be a distinct body or a branch of the legislature. As insurance, he also ordered Gen. How could recoveries be enforced? Though it may rather be a digression from the immediate subject of this paper, I shall take occasion to mention here a supposition which has excited some alarm upon very mistaken grounds. They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will. From a body which had even a partial agency in passing bad laws, we could rarely expect a disposition to temper and moderate them in the application. The same spirit which had operated in making them, would be too apt in interpreting them; still less could it be expected that men who had infringed the Constitution in the character of legislators, would be disposed to repair the breach in the character of judges. Many settlers enjoyed lucrative trade with their Native neighbors, and the economic potential of the west was visible for the first time.
How the (First) West Was Won: Federalist Treaties that Reshaped the Frontier
Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? While this ought to remove all apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments. While Hamilton framed the tax as a mere revenue stream, he also specifically crafted the law to bring the backcountry to heel and impose federal sovereignty over the region in which it proved so elusive. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, "with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make. The rebellion would eventually flame out, but it became very clear that any economic future in the west would require peaceful relations with native peoples to reach its full potential.
This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. This is the principle, and it applies in all its consequences, exactly in the same manner and extent, to the State governments, as to the national government now under consideration.
The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party. The motivation for a union is safety, being aware though that no matter how great the nation's commitment to liberty freedoms are compromised in order to achieve protection. The following train of ideas may well be imagined to have influenced the convention, in relation to this particular provision. It has been suggested that an assignment of the public securities of one State to the citizens of another, would enable them to prosecute that State in the federal courts for the amount of those securities; a suggestion which the following considerations prove to be without foundation. In other words, if the states are too busy with fighting each other, how will they protect each other? Further complicating the deteriorating situation in the west was that, contrary to the Treaty of Paris, the British had not fully evacuated the frontier. When the American Revolution began Spain proved itself to be a strong ally of the Patriots, and their aid proved essential for victory in the western theater. Given the United States was underdeveloped, at the time, in comparison to Great Britain, in no way would have America protected itself against attackers of outer parties.
Why may not it be said, with the strictest propriety, when a writ of error is brought from an inferior to a superior court of law in this State, that the latter has jurisdiction of the fact as well as the law? There are, in my opinion, substantial reasons against such a provision: the most discerning cannot foresee how far the prevalency of a local spirit may be found to disqualify the local tribunals for the jurisdiction of national causes; whilst every man may discover, that courts constituted like those of some of the States would be improper channels of the judicial authority of the Union. Many Anti-Federalists thought that State Courts could handle localized cases. Publication date June 25-28, 1788 Mediatype Newspaper Precededby Followedby Federalist No. To what purpose would it be to authorize suits against States for the debts they owe? With its occupation of the region, France had unified it into a pre-existing sector of influence that included the St. In Britain, the judical power, in the last resort, resides in the House of Lords, which is a branch of the legislature; and this part of the British government has been imitated in the State constitutions in general. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. But why, it is asked, might not the same purpose have been accomplished by the instrumentality of the State courts? The habit of being continually marshalled on opposite sides will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity.
