Essay About Federalist 78 by Alexander Hamilton

An independent judiciary is healthy for a smooth functioning democracy because the concept of an independent judiciary, as stated in Hamilton's Federalist 78, will allow judges to be loyal to the constitution.  In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argues for judicial review by an independent judiciary as a necessary means to void all governmental actions contrary to the Constitution. Judicial review is the procedure by which a court can review an administrative action by a public body The Constitution allows the judicial branch to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases.

The Constitution is a good representation of a document favoring a smooth functioning government. The Constitution is important because it establishes the constitution as the supreme law of the land. That means that every person, regardless of their social status, and every state, regardless of its wealth or size, has to obey the constitution. If the supreme court says that something is unconstitutional then it will never be able to exist, and if they say that something has to be done then it will have to be done because of the constitution. Also, democracy is a system in which all people have a say in the governance of their country. The Constitution ensures this and prescribes how exactly democracy should be enacted in the US, by describing the process of making laws, which includes the representation of the people. Although judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court established the legitimacy of the concept when it struck down an act of Congress in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. The courts had embraced judicial review by the twentieth century, leading some critics to maintain that the overly active use of judicial review had given the courts too much power. Whether or not the courts have demonstrated "judicial activism" by striking down legislation

In Federalist 78, Hamilton made two principal points in the essay. First, he argued for the independence of the judiciary from the other two branches of government, the executive and the legislative. In presenting a case for the judiciary, he reached his second major conclusion: that the judiciary must be empowered to strike down laws passed by Congress that it deems "contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution." In presenting his argument for the independence of the judiciary, Hamilton claimed that it was by far the weakest of the three branches. It did not, he said, have the "sword" of the executive, who is commander in chief of the nation's armed forces, nor the "purse" of the legislature, which approves all the tax and spending measures of the national government. It had, according to Hamilton, "neither force nor will but merely judgment. "As a result of this weakness, the U.S. Constitution protects the judiciary from the other two branches by what Hamilton called "permanency in office." Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution declares, "Judges … shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." By making the tenure of federal judges permanent and not temporary, Hamilton argued, the Constitution ensures that judges will not be changed according to the interests or whims of another branch of government. According to Hamilton, permanent tenure also recognizes the complexity of the law in a free society. Few people, he believed, will have the knowledge and the integrity to judge the law, and those deemed adequate to the office must be retained rather than replaced. The judiciary must also be independent, according to Hamilton, so that it may fulfill its main purpose in a constitutional government: the protection of the "particular rights or privileges" of the people as set forth by the Constitution. Here, Hamilton made his second major point. To protect those rights, he proclaimed the judiciary must be given the power of judicial review to declare as null and void laws that it deems unconstitutional. Making the Judicial branch independent and have power over the other branches to create a smooth, functioning government.

 While others might argue that an independent judiciary is unhealthy for a smooth functioning democracy because of Brutus No. 1. Brutus No.1 argues that a free republic cannot exist in such a large territory such as the United States. He uses the examples of the Greek and Roman republics that became tyrannical as their territory grew. He states that a true free republic comes from the people, not representatives of the people. The group that argues an independent judiciary is wrong, believes that an independent judiciary is a  source of danger to the state judiciaries. They worried that the jurisdiction of the federal courts was too broad, and as federal power grew, which they believed was inevitable, more cases would be taken to federal courts rather than state courts, thus reducing the importance of state judiciaries. Which is why some are in fear of an independent judiciary.

In conclusion, An independent judiciary is healthy for a smooth - functioning democracy. This is proved by Hamilton's Federalist 78 and the constitution. These documents prove that with our judicial branch we can have a good democracy.