During the creation of the Constitution in 1787, constitutional lawmakers faced the responsibility of creating an improved justice system after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. When analyzing the initial stages of judicial power, we must necessarily look at the debates that took place between Federalists and Antifederalists during the Founding. Although both sides had radically different views on the power and function of the judiciary, both sides agreed that a better system than that provided for in the Articles of Confederation was needed. Between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the most notable debate was over the court's power to declare laws unconstitutional. Under the proposed Constitution, judges were appointed for life and their sentences were not to be reviewed by another branch of government. As a result, Brutus fears that the Supreme Court's decisions would be "independent of heaven itself" in his essay Brutus XI. However, Alexander Hamilton argues that the judiciary will always be “the least dangerous” because courts have neither “strength nor will but simply judgment.” As we know, the Constitution was ratified despite anti-Federalist concerns. However, many of the fears expressed in Brutus XI are still valid today. As Brutus predicted, the Supreme Court has the ability to “shape government into virtually any shape it chooses” because there is “no power above it to control its decisions.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton attempts to explain and clarify the structure of the judiciary as proposed by the Constitution. In his examination of the judiciary, he addresses three main ideas: the crucial independence of the federal courts from the other branches, permanent appointments, and the relationship of the judicial branch to the other branches (which establishes concepts of judicial review). Through his defense of the judiciary, Hamilton insisted that courts must have the power to strike down laws passed by Congress that he deems “contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution.” To begin his argument, he addresses the proposed lifetime tenure of federal judges. Under the Constitution, federal judges are appointed by the government and hold their positions for the rest of their lives, assuming they maintain “good conduct.” Noting the critic's mixed opinion, he explains that lifelong tenure is the judicial branch's most valuable asset. For example, tenure frees federal judges from political pressure and also prevents the executive and legislative branches from imposing judicial decisions. Furthermore, Hamilton believed that very few people would have the competence and integrity to judge the laws, and those who are sufficiently adequate in their office should be retained rather than replaced. Realizing that Anti-Federalists see the judiciary as a threat to their liberties, Hamilton states that the judicial branch is easily "the weakest of the three departments of power" and "will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution." Hamilton further explains that federal courts have neither the "sword" of the executive, who is the commander in chief of the nation's military, nor the "purse" of the legislature, who approves all fiscal and spending measures of the national government . Once again, according to Hamilton, the judiciary "has neither strength nor will but only judgment". In short, because the court only has the power to judge, the judiciary relies on the other two branches to executehis decisions. Interestingly, Hamilton acknowledges the possibility of courts treating individuals unfairly, but argues that “the general liberty of the people may never be endangered” due to the weakness of the court. Another critical point highlights the limited powers of the Constitution. He explains that “a limitation of this kind cannot be preserved in practice except through the courts of justice.” In essence, individual protections under the Constitution are worthless unless courts have the power to declare laws in violation of constitutional provisions. Furthermore, it reiterates that the Constitution must be considered fundamental law. Continuing, he states that the Constitution represents the will of the people and that the legislative power cannot reasonably replace its own will with the will of the people. Therefore, it is necessary to have a judicial power that governs according to the will of the people and not that of the legislators. Basically, Hamilton is saying that no branch is superior to the other and that all branches are inferior to the power of the people. As an example for considering judges as protection against legislative encroachment (otherwise known as judicial review), Hamilton suggests a situation in which the public desires an unconstitutional law and the legislature similarly accommodates. Since the judiciary is independent from the other branches, it is obligated to uphold the Constitution in the best interest of the general population. For the remainder of his essay, Hamilton revisits and strengthens his case for lifetime appointments and the independence of the judiciary from other factions of government. In Brutus XI, the author questions the authority of the proposed judiciary and expresses anti-Federalist concerns about this government branch. . Up to this point, Brutus argues, the issue has received little attention. Regarding the judicial branch, Brutus has three main concerns. Above all, he wanted judicial powers to be specifically delineated (arguing that the Constitution was too vague on the subject), then he criticized the inability of the other branches to "control" the judiciary and, finally, he worried about the interference of politics in inside the court. To begin his essay, he complains about the complex terminology and confusing choice of words used by the Framers to delegate power to the judiciary. He also insists that the distinction between cases arising under the Constitution is not entirely clear. That said, he argues that the judicial branch will replace the legislative branch in many cases because the court is given the implicit power to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. As a result of the court's power to interpret the Constitution, Brutus believed that the judiciary could do harm without the power of the "purse of the sword" mentioned in Federalist 78. Overall, Anti-Federalists believed that the judiciary would ultimately undermine the legislature. as well as state government because judges would interpret the Constitution in a way that increases their own power to the detriment of individuals and the state government. Brutus believed that because the powers of the judiciary are not strictly articulated, the court has the power to make laws in favor of the government; and therefore, judges had the power to shape the federal government indefinitely. To continue, Brutus also reflects on the lifelong repercussions of employment terms. Rightly, he wonders whether life terms will ultimately reduce the United States to an aristocracy. Believing that judicial power is “entirely unprecedented in a free country,” Brutus questions why there is no authority above judicial government. Furthermore, Brutus worries.”