Hamilton vs. Brutus: The Battle Over Judicial Power in Federalist 78

Dr. Sean Beienberg examines the historical debate between Alexander Hamilton and Brutus regarding judicial power and independence in the American constitutional system. Hamilton's Federalist 78 defends judicial review as necessary for enforcing constitutional limits on government, while Brutus feared creating an unaccountable judicial oligarchy.• Both Hamilton and Brutus agreed judicial review existed in the Constitution but disagreed on whether it was beneficial• Brutus warned judges would become "independent of heaven itself" with no checks on their power• Hamilton argued the judiciary would be "the least dangerous branch" lacking enforcement mechanisms• The case for judicial independence collapses if judges enforce their preferences rather than the Constitution• Hamilton explicitly rejected judges updating the Constitution based on changing public sentiment• Brutus feared judges would rely on the "spirit" rather than text of the Constitution to expand their powerListen to our other episodes in the Civics in a Year series to build your understanding of America's constitutional foundations. Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!School of Civic and Economic Thought and LeadershipCenter for American Civics