Federalist No. 80

Last updated

Federalist No. 80
Alexander Hamilton portrait by John Trumbull 1806.jpg
Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist No. 80
Author Alexander Hamilton
Original titleThe Powers of the Judiciary
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
PublisherThe Independent Journal, New York Packet, The Daily Advertiser
Publication date
July 5 – August 12, 1788
Media typeNewspaper
Preceded by Federalist No. 79  
Followed by Federalist No. 81  

Federalist No. 80 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the eightieth of The Federalist Papers . [1] It was published on June 21, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. [2] It is titled "The Powers of the Judiciary", and it is the third in a series of six essays discussing the powers and limitations of the judicial branch. [2]

Contents

Summary

Publius begins this essay by describing five areas that the federal judiciary ought to have jurisdiction over: first, cases which arise out of the laws of the United States; second, cases which arise out of provisions of the proposed United States Constitution; third, cases in which the United States is a party; fourth, all cases that involve "the peace of the confederacy"; and fifth, all cases that originate on the high seas. [3] He then addresses each of these points in turn. [4] Federalist No. 80, the "Powers of the Judiciary", published on June 21, 1788, explains the powers and limitations of the judicial branch of the United States government. Alexander Hamilton offers five specific principles or situations in which the judiciary should have jurisdiction to overrule state laws and explains why the federal court should hold such responsibilities.

As to the first set of cases, Publius explains that in a Union, there will necessarily be certain things that the states are prohibited from doing, such as the prohibition on coining money. [3] Given this, he states that there must be some way for the federal government to enforce these prohibitions, and so it must be the authority of federal courts to overrule improper action by the states. [5] As he puts it, "the States, by the plan of the convention, are prohibited from doing a variety of things, some of which are incompatible with the interests of the Union, and others with the principles of good government." In other words, the interests of the whole nation require certain limits on the states. Hamilton offers the example of coining money, which was forbidden to the states but was done anyway. The only logical way to prevent such violations was to allow federal courts to hear such cases, since state courts would presumably rule in favor of their own state.[1]

As to the second set of cases, Publius posits that there can be no argument against this power of the federal judiciary. [6] The necessity of uniform laws, and the status of the judiciary as equal to the legislative branch and the executive branch, requires that the judiciary hear cases involving the text of the Constitution. [6] Hamilton's second principle states that, where federal laws are concerned, the federal court should have jurisdiction to maintain uniformity in the interpretation of national laws. If thirteen independent courts had the final say over the same laws, there would be no national laws, only state laws.[2]

Publius says very little about the third set of cases. [6] He mentions only that a national forum is the only one proper to hear cases between a citizen and the United States. [6] The overall main focus of this third set of cases emphasizes that only a national forum is the proper to hear cases between a citizen and the United States. Any conflict between the nation and a citizen can and will be resolved, only through the Federal Court. "Still less need be said in regard to the third point. Controversies between the nation and its members or citizens, can only be properly referred to the national tribunals. Any other plan would be contrary to reason, to precedent, and to decorum." The third is the shortest of the principles and the most straightforward. Furthermore, this leads us into the fourth case.

As to the fourth set of cases, Publius explains that this relies on the proposition that "the peace of the whole ought not to be left at the disposal of the part." [6] He further explains that undoubtedly there will be cases involving citizens of foreign countries, and only the federal judiciary can adjudicate those cases to reflect the national perspective, unlike the states that would decide such cases in their own best interest rather than that of the Union. [6] Within this same jurisdictional power is that to hear cases involving citizens of different states, as well as territorial disputes. [7] Along the same reasoning, the federal judiciary is the only forum that can be expected to decide such cases with neutrality and uniformity, since the State courts would likely decide in favor of their own citizens and their own interests. [8] This principle simply emphasizes that as a whole, the country should not be taken to blame for one part of it: you as a citizen are responsible for actions in and out of the country and will be handled by the federal court if a problem arises. Hamilton explains that this point is important when dealing with problems between two states and/or countries.

As to the fifth set of cases, Publius explains that maritime disputes are also relevant to the "public peace" and must be decided by the federal judiciary. [9] Maritime disputes should also be under the jurisdiction of the federal court. The federal court should hold much jurisdiction over the maritime cases because they involve other countries laws. Maritime disputes are generally known as lawsuit cases that appear after the action of passengers injured or actions against employers that fail to use reasonable care towards others that take place near or on the water. Knowing this, the importance for most maritime (sea-related) cases to be in the hands of the federal court is developed

Having concluded this summary, Publius begins explaining the neutrality and impartiality that will be afforded by a federal judiciary. [9] He explains that the states cannot be expected to be unbiased, but that the proposed Constitution must take this into account to ensure fairness and equality among the states. [9]

Publius then moves to explain the differences between "law" and "equity", and how those concepts have been reflected in the language of the proposed Constitution with the word "cases" to mean arising from law and the word "controversies" to mean arising from equity. [10] He then quotes the proposed Constitution to explain which areas are to be cases and which are to be controversies, such as cases involving treaties and maritime disputes, but controversies involving disputes between two states. [11]

Publius concludes the essay with the affirmation that the drafters of the proposed United States Constitution have attempted to safeguard against all "mischiefs", but if those do arise in the judicial branch, there are checks in place to maintain order and to insure against impropriety. [12]

Related Research Articles

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. The Court's landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals. It helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Three of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding the judicial branch

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.

<i>The Federalist Papers</i> 1788 essay collection promoting ratification of the US Constitution

The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. The collection was commonly known as The Federalist until the name The Federalist Papers emerged in the twentieth century.

In the United States, a state court has jurisdiction over disputes with some connection to a U.S. state. State courts handle the vast majority of civil and criminal cases in the United States; the United States federal courts are far smaller in terms of both personnel and caseload, and handle different types of cases. States often provide their trial courts with general jurisdiction and state trial courts regularly have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and their subject-matter jurisdiction arises only under federal law.

Federal common law is a term of United States law used to describe common law that is developed by the federal courts, instead of by the courts of the various states. Ever since Louis Brandeis, writing for the Supreme Court of the United States in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (1938), overturned Joseph Story's decision in Swift v. Tyson, federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction have applied state law as the substantive laws, with few exceptions. Nevertheless, there are several areas where federal common law continues to govern.

Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court determining that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a citizen of a U.S. state to sue that state in a federal court. Citizens cannot bring suits against their own state for cases related to the federal constitution and federal laws. The court left open the question of whether a citizen may sue his or her state in state courts. That ambiguity was resolved in Alden v. Maine (1999), in which the Court held that a state's sovereign immunity forecloses suits against a state government in state court.

<i>Federalist No. 78</i> Most-cited Federalist Paper; by Alexander Hamilton and about the Supreme Court

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federalist No. 3</span> Federalist Paper by John Jay

Federalist No. 3, titled "The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence", is a political essay by John Jay, the third of The Federalist Papers. It was first published in The Independent Journal on November 3, 1787, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. It is the second of four essays by Jay on the benefits of political union in protecting Americans against foreign adversaries, preceded by Federalist No. 2 and followed by Federalist No. 4 and Federalist No. 5.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federalist No. 11</span> Federalist Paper by Alexander Hamilton

Federalist No. 11 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the eleventh of The Federalist Papers. It was first published in The Independent Journal on November 23, 1787 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. It is titled "The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federalist No. 14</span> Federalist Paper by James Madison

Federalist No. 14 is an essay by James Madison titled "Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered". This essay is the fourteenth of The Federalist Papers. It was first published in The New York Packet on November 30, 1787 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. It addresses a major objection of the Anti-Federalists to the proposed United States Constitution: that the sheer size of the United States would make it impossible to govern justly as a single country. Madison touched on this issue in Federalist No. 10 and returns to it in this essay.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federalist No. 13</span> Federalist Paper by Alexander Hamilton

Federalist No. 13 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the thirteenth of The Federalist Papers. It was first published in The Independent Journal on November 28, 1787, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. It is titled "Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federalist No. 16</span> Federalist Paper by Alexander Hamilton

Federalist No. 16, titled "The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union", is an essay by Alexander Hamilton. It is one of the eighty-five articles collected in the document The Federalist Papers. The entire collection of papers was written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Federalist Paper No. 16 was first published on December 4, 1787 by The New York Packet under the pseudonym Publius. According to James Madison, "the immediate object of them was to vindicate and recommend the new Constitution to the State of [New York] whose ratification of the instrument, was doubtful, as well as important". In addition, the articles were written and addressed "To the People of New York".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federalist No. 25</span> Federalist Paper by Alexander Hamilton regarding the common defense

Federalist No. 25 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the twenty-fifth of The Federalist Papers. It was first published in The New York Packet on December 21, 1787, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. It continues the discussion begun in Federalist No. 24. No. 25 is titled "The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federalist No. 26</span> Federalist Paper by Alexander Hamilton regarding a standing army

Federalist No. 26, titled "The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered", is an essay written by Alexander Hamilton as the twenty-sixth of The Federalist Papers. It was published on December 22, 1787, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. Federalist No. 26 expands upon the arguments of a federal military Hamilton made in No. 24 and No. 25, and it is directly continued in No. 27 and No. 28.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federalist No. 27</span> Federalist Paper by Alexander Hamilton

Federalist No. 27, titled "The Same Subject Continued: The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered", is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the twenty-seventh of The Federalist Papers. It was published on December 25, 1787, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. Federalist No. 27 is the second of three successive essays covering the relationship between legislative authority and military force, preceded by Federalist No. 26, and succeeded by Federalist No. 28.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federalist No. 49</span> Federalist Paper by James Madison

Federalist No. 49 is an essay by James Madison, the forty-ninth of The Federalist Papers. It was first published by The New York Packet on February 2, 1788, under the pseudonym "Publius", the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. It is titled "Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention".

<i>Federalist No. 76</i> Federalist Paper by Alexander Hamilton

Federalist No. 76, written by Alexander Hamilton, was published on April 1, 1788. The Federalist Papers are a series of eighty-five essays written to urge the ratification of the United States Constitution. These letters were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the name of Publius in the late 1780s. This paper discusses the arrangement of the power of appointment and the system of checks and balances. The title is "The Appointing Power of the Executive", and is the tenth in a series of 11 essays discussing the powers and limitations of the Executive branch. There are three options for entrusting power: a single individual, a select congregation, or an individual with the unanimity of the assembly. Hamilton supported bestowing the president with the nominating power but the ratifying power would be granted to the senate in order to have a process with the least bias.

<i>Federalist No. 81</i> Third-most cited Federalist Paper; by Alexander Hamilton on the judiciary

Federalist No. 81 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the eighty-first of The Federalist Papers. It was published on June 25 and 28, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. The title is "The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority", and it is the fourth in a series of six essays discussing the powers and limitations of the Judicial branch.

<i>Federalist No. 82</i> Federalist Paper by Alexander Hamilton

Federalist No. 82 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the eighty-second of The Federalist Papers. It was published on July 2, 1788, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. Its title is "The Judiciary Continued", and it is the fifth in a series of six essays discussing the powers and limitations of the judicial branch of government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in the United States</span> Power of courts to review laws

In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

References

  1. ↑ Hamilton, Alexander. "Federalist No. 80". The Avalon Project. Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale University. Retrieved December 7, 2011.
  2. 1 2 Hamilton, Alexander. "Federalist No. 80". The Federalist Papers. Library of Congress. Archived from the original on May 7, 2009. Retrieved December 7, 2011.
  3. 1 2 The Federalist Papers. New York: New American Library, a division of Penguin Books. 1999. p. 474. ISBN   0-451-52881-6.
  4. ↑ The Federalist Papers. New York: New American Library, a division of Penguin Books. 1999. pp. 474–477. ISBN   0-451-52881-6.
  5. ↑ The Federalist Papers. New York: New American Library, a division of Penguin Books. 1999. pp. 474–475. ISBN   0-451-52881-6.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 The Federalist Papers. New York: New American Library, a division of Penguin Books. 1999. p. 475. ISBN   0-451-52881-6.
  7. ↑ The Federalist Papers. New York: New American Library, a division of Penguin Books. 1999. pp. 475–476. ISBN   0-451-52881-6.
  8. ↑ The Federalist Papers. New York: New American Library, a division of Penguin Books. 1999. pp. 476–477. ISBN   0-451-52881-6.
  9. 1 2 3 The Federalist Papers. New York: New American Library, a division of Penguin Books. 1999. p. 477. ISBN   0-451-52881-6.
  10. ↑ The Federalist Papers. New York: New American Library, a division of Penguin Books. 1999. pp. 478–479. ISBN   0-451-52881-6.
  11. ↑ The Federalist Papers. New York: New American Library, a division of Penguin Books. 1999. pp. 479–480. ISBN   0-451-52881-6.
  12. ↑ The Federalist Papers. New York: New American Library, a division of Penguin Books. 1999. p. 480. ISBN   0-451-52881-6.

a b Stearns, Susan. "Alexander Hamilton Project". wiki.dot.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.