hey there and welcome back to heimlich history in this video we're going to look at another one of your required documents for ap government namely federalist 78 so if you're ready to give me a lifetime appointment to milk your brain cows then let's get to it now the federalist papers were of course written to argue for the ratification of the newly drafted constitution and federalist 78 written by our boy alexander hamilton is all about the judicial branch of the new federal government outlined in the constitution now he begins by acknowledging that since there was no federal court system under the articles of confederation which was patently a hot mess nobody really disagreed that america needed this new judicial institution the only real argument is over how and for how long justices will be appointed and what kind of power the judicial branch should have so let's start with how judges will be appointed to the federal courts and for how long so federal judges are appointed by the president according to article 3 of the constitution and as to the length of their term hamilton says according to the plan of the convention all judges who may be appointed to the united states are to hold their offices during good behavior so that means as long as federal judges behave they will hold their offices for life now that seemed awfully suspect to anti-federalists who are arguing against the ratification of the constitution so you're saying that the people don't elect these judges and the people can't replace these judges in elections because they have life tenure i say but hamilton argued that lifetime appointments were a necessity to keep this branch of government as independent as possible he says if then the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited constitution against legislative encroachments this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous of duty do you remember madison's argument from federalist 51 that in order for this new government to work each of the three branches had to operate as independently as possible that's essentially what hamilton is arguing here for the judicial branch lifetime appointments make it possible for judges to rule with impartiality and not have to worry about pleasing the people for the sake of re-election additionally lifetime appointments serve a practical function as well hamilton says think about the whole mountain of precedence that a federal judge will be responsible for knowing if you change judges out at any span of time the amount of learning that must be done will make the office itself prohibitive and that's a problem because a temporary duration in office which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of law practice to accept a seat on the bench would have the tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able and less well qualified to conduct it with utility and dignity so that's why according to hamilton lifetime appointments are necessary for the judiciary he then goes on to talk about the scope and limits of power of the judicial branch the duty of federal judges he says must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void the word for this power of the judicial branch is judicial review the court is responsible for considering laws passed by congress and making sure that they are in line with the constitution if the court finds that they are not and rules in such a manner then the offending laws are considered null and void now hamilton's detractors argued that such power would make the judicial branch more powerful than the legislative branch which represented the people and that's what it sounds like right like if the federal courts can overturn a law passed by the legislature then it sounds like the judiciary has more power but hamilton disagrees 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 in other words if the legislature passes a law which violates the constitution it is already null and void because no unconstitutional law can be binding on a people governed by the constitution in that way the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order among other things to keep the legislature within the limits assigned to their authority and then he goes on to explain why the scenario does not give the judicial branch undue power nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power it only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both and that where the will of the legislature declared in statute stands in opposition to that of the people declared in the constitution the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former so to summarize lifetime appointments for federal judges are necessary to keep them independent and unreliant on popular will and the judicial branch's power of judicial review does not make the federal court system more powerful than the legislature but rather balances and checks it okay that's what you need to know about federalist 78 if you need help getting an a in your class and a five on your exam may then click right here and grab review packet if you want to give me a lifetime appointment to help you in your ap classes then by all means subscribe and i