Search results
4 de ene. de 2002 · The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary on the contrary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever.
Federalist No. 78 indica que el poder judicial federal tiene el poder de determinar si los estatutos concuerdan con lo establecido en la Constitución, o si están conflicto con esta. Este principio de revisión judicial fue utilizado por la Corte Suprema en el caso de Marbury contra Madison (1803).
Hamilton argued that the judiciary was the least dangerous branch of the government and that it had the power to review the constitutionality of laws and actions. He claimed that the courts were the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments and that the people's will was superior to the legislature.
Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the job of determining whether acts of Congress are constitutional and what must be done if the government is faced with the things that are done on the contrary of the Constitution.
Hamilton argues for an independent judiciary with permanent tenure and lifetime appointments to protect the Constitution from encroachments by the legislature. He claims that the judiciary is the weakest and most impartial branch of government, and that its role is to declare unconstitutional laws void.
Federalist No. 78 es un ensayo de Alexander Hamilton, el septuagésimo octavo de The Federalist Papers. Como todos los artículos de The Federalist, fue publicado utilizando el seudónimo Publius.
Hamilton argues for a federal judiciary with independence, permanence, and authority to declare unconstitutional laws void. He explains the importance of judicial review in a limited Constitution and the danger of legislative supremacy.
