Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Federalist Papers, as a foundation text of constitutional interpretation, are frequently cited by U.S. jurists, but are not law. Of all the essays, No. 78 is the most cited by the justices of the United States Supreme Court. Federalist No. 78 quotes Montesquieu: "Of the three powers [...], the judiciary is next to nothing." There was little ...
[6] Federalist No. 78, also written by Hamilton, lays the groundwork for the doctrine of judicial review by federal courts of federal legislation or executive acts. Federalist No. 70 presents Hamilton's case for a one-man chief executive. In Federalist No. 39, Madison presents the clearest exposition of what has come to be called "Federalism".
In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote, The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.
In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton advocated the doctrine of a written document held as a superior enactment of the people. "A limited constitution can be preserved in practice no other way" than through courts which can declare void any legislation contrary to the Constitution.
(The title is an allusion to The Federalist No. 78, in which Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary "will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution", because it has neither the sword (like the Executive) nor the purse (like the Legislature).
This page was last edited on 18 January 2006, at 02:10 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
Federalist No. 44 does not imply that the states have the power to legally nullify federal law, although this would have been an appropriate context in which to mention it if such a power were thought to exist. Federalist No. 78 says that the federal courts have the power "to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution ...
Unlike the authors of The Federalist Papers, a group of three men working closely together, the authors of the Anti-Federalist papers were not engaged in an organized project. Thus, in contrast to the pro-Constitution advocates, there was no one book or collection of Anti-Federalist Papers at the time.