all right everybody welcome back in this video we're gonna deal with the last of the federalist papers a Federalist number 78 so let's get right to it [Music] all right so federal Sommer 70 is all about the judicial branch in fact let's talk about the main idea right off the bat Alexander Hamilton is arguing in favor of life terms for federal judges to maintain an independent judiciary there's basically three main ideas in this video judges should have life terms we need an independent judiciary and that judiciary needs to have the power of judicial review so let's go through the document and see how Hamilton makes the arguments in favor of each of these three principles of the judiciary so right off the bat this is the first line of Federalist 78 and he says that all judges may be appointed are to hold their offices during good behavior now I know he could be a little bit more specific and that would help us out a little bit boy he means is that there aren't term limits they don't hold office for two years or four years or six years like senators representatives and the president but rather as long as they have good behavior so essentially as long as they aren't impeached and removed from office well why does he think that's a good thing he says that that life tenure is the best expedient having a steady upright and impartial and that's the key word impartial administration of the laws now again we kind of need to pause here because Hamilton is arguing to give somebody power for life they will not be elected by the people they're gonna be appointed by the president confirmed by the Senate and then they have that job for life as long as they don't mess up and get impeached in a room from office that's a lot of power to give somebody and that doesn't sound very democratic so the question is why don't we need to worry about giving them this job for life well Hamilton has an answer and it's really simple he says the judicial branch is the least dangerous of the branches so don't worry about it again you see the claim that the judiciary will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution it'll have the least ability to take them away to annoy them to limit them again he goes on to say that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three branches when he compares the judiciary to the legislative and executive branches he points out that the judiciary it doesn't have power of the purse budget power it doesn't have power of the sword meaning the power to make war he then goes on to say it has neither force nor will but merely judgment and notice the way he says that but merely as if it's not that significant but merely judgment and the dish ran tamale upon the executive for the efficacy of its judgments here Hamilton is pointing out something really important they're gonna discuss more throughout the course which is that the judicial branch it can't enforce its own rulings it can make a judgement but then it's reliant on the executive branch or state and local governments to actually administer its rulings so in that way Hamilton is right it is relatively powerless when it comes to enforcing its rulings all right so he's established that he wants life tenure for judges he's established why you don't need to be worried about them having life tenure but why is life tenure necessary well here Hamilton argues that life tenure is necessary to maintain an independent judiciary so what does that mean and why is it important well he starts by saying that Liberty would have everything to fear from the union of the judicial branch with either of the other two branches so essentially if either Congress or the president were to dominate the judicial branch we wouldn't really have Liberty so let's kind of back up here and think about it this way if federal judges knew that the President or Congress could take away their job if they disliked the rulings that the judicial branch made well what would judges naturally do they might be inclined to rule in favor of Congress or to rule in favor of the president even when they're doing something wrong even when they're going against the Constitution and if that's the case then we might as well not even have a judiciary so he goes on to say that nothing can contribute so much to its firmness of the judicial branch and independence as permanency in office so by allowing federal judges to have this job for life it means they don't need to worry about Congress they don't need to worry about the president the president can tweet at them all day long Congress can criticize them but they don't have anything to fear which means that they can do their job and rule properly and defend the Constitution and part of defending the Constitution means that the judiciary must have the power of judicial review they must be able to strike down laws and actions that go contrary to the Constitution here Hamilton says that these courts whose duty must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount nothing what he means by that is that without a judiciary that can actually strike down overreaches by Congress or the president all those nice words in the Constitution limiting Congress power limiting the president's power and protecting individual rights all those words would be just words they wouldn't actually mean anything they wouldn't limit governmental power and they certainly wouldn't protect individual rights so here Hamilton is explicitly arguing in favor of the power of judicial review for the Supreme Court now we know that judicial review wasn't mentioned directly in the Constitution but here Hamilton is helping us to understand that that is the intention of the framers that the court would in fact have this power and he explains it thusly he says a constitution is and must be regarded as a fundamental law if there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two meaning a federal law and the Constitution the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute or the law in plain English he's saying that if the Constitution says one thing and Congress has something else well the Constitution is superior to Congress so the Congressional law will be struck down so really Courtney Hamilton the job of the judicial branch is to protect the Constitution from Congress Congress is the threat to the Constitution through their lawmaking power Congress might at times encroach or make laws that go against the Constitution so he describes courts as the bulwark of a limited Constitution against the legislative branch and he says that as long as they have that permanent tenure of office meaning that life tenure they'll have the independent spirit which we call an independent judiciary which will be essential to them successfully guarding the Constitution and defending it from congressional overreach so I want to hear what you think should federal judges have life terms or would it be better if they're democratically elected or maybe served a fixed term of office let me know what you think in comments down below until next time this has been allamani production thanks again for watching this video if you want do me a favor hit that like button before you go subscribe if you haven't already make sure you check out the AP gov ultimate review packet it is a great great aid to getting prepared for the AP exam and I'll see you all in the next video