Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Federalist No. 78 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the seventy-eighth of The Federalist Papers. Like all of The Federalist papers, it was published under the pseudonym Publius . Titled " The Judiciary Department ", Federalist No. 78 was published May 28, 1788, and first appeared in a newspaper on June 14 of the same year.
[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".
The Anti-Federalist papers were written over a number of years and by a variety of authors who utilized pen names to remain anonymous, and debates over authorship continue to this day. 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 ...
Alexander Hamilton, wrote in Federalist No. 78 that, "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." [17]
Brutus was the pen name of an Anti-Federalist in a series of essays designed to encourage New Yorkers to reject the proposed Constitution. His essays are considered among the best of those written to oppose adoption of the proposed constitution. [1] They paralleled and confronted The Federalist Papers during the ratification fight over the ...
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump met for a fierce clash in Philadelphia on Tuesday, debating topics like abortion and immigration, as Trump veered at times into deep MAGA territory. Harris put Trump ...
In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton stated that the federal courts are the natural and proper forum for determining such legal issues: "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.
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 ...