Post Content

Alexander Hamilton wrote about “The Judiciary Department” in Federalist No. 78. In what have become known as the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote 85 articles and essays under the pseudonym of Publius in an effort to convince the citizens of New York to ratify the United States Constitution. Federalist No. 78 speaks of the need for an independent judiciary.

Hamilton’s essay reads, in part, “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority. . . Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.”

And “this independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.”

Article III of the United States Constitution vests federal judicial power “in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” and outlines the scope of that power.

In the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Chief Justice Marshall established the principle of judicial review. Judicial review, as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, is “a court’s power to review the actions of other branches or levels of government; esp. the court’s power to invalidate legislative and executive actions as being unconstitutional.”

 

Written By:

Recent Posts

State Building Code- new 9th edition posted on Nov 6

The Massachusetts Board of Regulations and Standards has issued the 9th edition of the State Building Code (780 Code of Massachusetts Regulations).  It was published in Massachusetts Register #1350, and it became effective on October 20, 2017.  There is a concurrency period with the 8th edition from October 20,   …Continue Reading State Building Code- new 9th edition

Witchcraft law up to the Salem witchcraft trials of 1692 posted on Oct 31

Early in 1692, a group of girls in Salem Village (now the town of Danvers) began to accuse people of witchcraft.  Accusations swelled, and soon, many people had been examined and jailed, awaiting trial. What laws were followed during the Salem witch trials of 1692? Under   …Continue Reading Witchcraft law up to the Salem witchcraft trials of 1692

Open Meeting Law Regulations Amended posted on Oct 23

The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office issued amended open meeting law regulations that became effective on October 6, 2017.  (940 Code of Mass. Regulations 29)  The regulations were published in Massachusetts Register #1349, and they “will streamline, modernize, and clarify Open Meeting Law compliance while simultaneously sustaining the   …Continue Reading Open Meeting Law Regulations Amended