The Federalist 78:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
Now, we will take a closer look at the court system of the proposed government.
In examining the flaws of the present union, it is evident how useful and necessary a federal court system is. We do not need to repeat the arguments from before, since we agree it is a good idea. Our focus will be on how we should set it up and what its scope should be.
The way of setting it up appears to include these three things: First, the way of picking the judges; second, the amount of time they will stay in their positions; and third, the division of judicial power between different courts, and the relationship between them.
First, the way of selecting judges is the same as selecting other government officials. This has already been talked about in the last two documents, so there is no need to repeat it here.
Second, the duration of a judge’s role, their salary, and measures taken to ensure they remain responsible, are all important considerations.
According to the plan of the convention, all judges appointed by the United States must follow good behavior that conforms to most state constitutions. Those who oppose this plan are seen as too critical. Good behavior is an important part of modern government. In a monarchy, it keeps the prince from being too powerful. In a republic, it keeps the representatives from being too controlling. It is the best way to make sure the laws are followed.
Anyone who looks closely at the different branches of government will see that in a system where they are kept separate, the judicial branch will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution. This is because it is least able to annoy or hurt them. The executive branch is responsible for giving out honors and holding the community’s power, while the legislature controls the money and sets the rules for how citizens should act. The judiciary, however, has no influence over either of these. It has no power or desire, it just makes decisions, and even then it needs help from the executive branch to carry out those decisions.
This simple view shows that the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government. It cannot attack the other two and must be protected against their attacks. It is also clear that if the judiciary is kept separate from the legislature and executive, while individual oppression may happen now and then, it will not challenge the general freedom of the people. As Montesquieu said: “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” While liberty has nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, it would have everything to fear from its union with the legistlative or executive branches. Such a union may form from the natural feebleness of the judiciary. To make it strong and independent, permanence in office is necessary. This ensures public justice and security.
The courts of justice must be completely independent in a limited government. This means that the government has certain restrictions, such as not being able to pass laws that punish someone without a trial, or laws that punish someone for something they did before the law was passed. The only way to make sure these restrictions are followed is to have the courts declare any laws that go against the constitution as invalid. Without this, the rights and privileges given to individuals would not be protected.
Some confusion over whether the courts have the right to declare laws made by the legislature as void because they go against the constitution has come from the thought that this would mean the courts are higher in authority than the legislature. People argue that the power to make decisions about another’s actions (the judiciary) must be more powerful than the one whose actions are being judged (the legislature). This idea is very important in all the constitutions in America, so it is worth taking a moment to look at the reasons for it.
It is clear that any action taken by someone with a special authority that goes against what they were told to do is not valid. This means that any law that goes against the constitution is invalid. To deny this would mean that the person with a special authority (the legislature) is more powerful than the entity which gave them the authority (the constitution), or that representatives are more powerful than the people themselves. This also means that people in power can do things that their power does not allow or even forbids.
Some may say that the legislature is the judge of their own powers, and conclusive over the judiciary or executive. It can be rebutted that this cannot be the natural assumption, as the consitution does not say as much. It should not be assumed that the Constitution intends representatives to substitute their personal will over that of their constituents. It is more rationale to suppose that the courts are meant to be a middle ground between the people and the legislature, making sure the legislature stays within their authority. Interpreting laws is the job of the courts. A Constitution is in fact—and must be treated as—a fundamental law, so the judges must decide its meaning, as well as the meaning of any laws passed by the legislature. If there is a conflict between the two, the Constitution is more important. This means the people’s wishes are more important than the wishes of their representatives.
This conclusion does not suggest that the judicial power has superiority over the legislative power. It only means that the power of the people is more important than both. If what the legislature has said in its laws disagrees with what the people have said in the Constitution, the judges should go with the Constitution. They should make decisions by the fundamentals laws, not by the secondary ones.
It sometimes happens that two laws conflict with each other. When this happens, it is the job of the courts to figure out how and if the two laws can work together. If that isn’t possible, one law is given priority over the other. The rule that is usually followed is that the most recent law is preferred. This isn’t an inherent truth, but a natural and reasonable conclusion. It is not a rule forced upon the courts by the legislature, but one adopted by themselves. They believe that the most recent law is the best way to know what the legislative authority wanted.
But when it comes to a conflict between a higher and lower authority, or an original and derivative power, the reason and logic suggest the opposite should be done. The prior action of a higher power should be given preference over the later action of a lower power. Therefore, if a certain law goes against the Constitution, it is the duty of the courts to uphold the constitution and ignore the law.
It is wrong to say that courts can ignore the wishes of the legislature and do what they want instead. This could happen when two laws contradict each other or when a court is interpreting a single law. The courts must decide what the law means, not what they want it to mean. If they do what they want instead of what the law says, it would be like the court is acting as the legislature. This shows that judges ought act separately from the will of legislature.
If the courts are thought of as the barriers of a limited constitution against legislative intrusions, this thought can provide a strong reason for the long-term nature of judicial positions, since nothing will help as much as this to create an independent attitude in the judges, which is necessary for carrying out this difficult job.
Judges must be independent to protect the Constitution and the rights of people from the bad ideas of some politicians. I trust the friends of the proposed Consitution will not question the republican principle to alter or abolish a consitution when it goes against their happiness. However, if such a momentary inclination were to arise, this would not justify representatives to violate the Constitution or judges to secretly allow infractions of it unless it had proceeded from the whole of the representative body. Until the people, by some solemn and authortative act, annulled or change the constitution, it is binding both collectively and individually. No knowledge of the people’s sentiments can warrant annulling the Constitution without such an act. It is easy to see that the judges would have to be very courageous protecting the Constitution if legistlative invasions were instigated by a loud part of the community.
The independence of judges is essential for more violations of the Consitution. Judges being independent is important to protect certain classes of citizens from unfair laws. It can help lessen the bad effects of these laws, and can also discourage lawmakers from making them in the first place. This has been seen in many states already, and must be appreciated by the virtuous. People should appreciate anything that makes the courts more honest and reasonable, as no one knows when they might be the ones affected by injustice, and injustice seeds distrust and suffering.
It is hard to expect judges to follow the rules of the Constitution and respect the rights of individuals if their job is only temporary. If their job was given to the executive or legislature, they may feel too much the need to please and do the most expedient, popular decision over the rule of law.
There is another good reason why judges should have permanent appointments. It is because of the qualifications they need. Free governments have lots of laws. To avoid arbitrary discretion in the courts, judges must follow strict rules and precedents. The volume of these precedents is unavoidably large. So, not many people know the laws well enough to be judges. And even fewer people know them well and are honest, so the government doesn’t have that many choices for judges. If their appointments were only temporary, the best people wouldn’t want to be judges because they would rather be in a more profitable job. This would be a big problem, but admittedly it is not as bad as the other problems with temporary judicial appointments.
In conclusion, it is clear that the convention was right to take inspiration from other constitutions that use good behavior as a requirement for a judge to keep their office. If they had not done this, it would have been a huge mistake. The example of Great Britain shows how successful this system can be.
The Federalist 79:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
It is important for judges to have a fixed salary because it ensures their independence. Without it, the judicial and legislative powers could not be completely separated. Many states have recognized this and have tried to provide salaries for the judges, but the language used has not been strong enough to prevent it from being changed or avoided. The plan of the convention makes sure this won’t happen by stating that the judges of the United States shall receive a certain amount of money that won’t be decreased while they are in office.
This is the best provision that can be made considering everything. It is not possible to set a fixed rate of pay because what is a lot of money now might not be enough in 50 years. So, it is left up to the legislature to decide how much to pay, but they can never make it worse than it was when someone first started the job. This way, a person will know what to expect and won’t be afraid to do their work. This rule applies to the president and the judges, but the president’s salary can never be changed, while the judges’ salary can never be lowered. This is because the president is only elected for four years, so their salary is usually enough for that time, but for judges, who usually stay in their job for life, their salary might become too small over time.
This provision for the support of the judges shows that it was made carefully and will be effective. It can be said with confidence that, with the judges having permanent jobs, it gives them more independence than the state constitutions do for their judges.
The article about impeachments states the precautions for people in positions of responsibility. If they do something wrong, they can be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate. If they are found guilty, they can be removed from their job and not allowed to have another one. This is the only way to keep judges independent and is the same way it is done in the US Constitution when it comes to judges.
People have complained about not having a way to remove judges because of lack of ability. However, knowledgeable people understand that such a provision would be hard to put into practice or would be more likely to be abused than to help. Measuring a person’s mental capacity is not an exact science. Trying to decide between mental ability and lack of ability would usually be based on personal or political feelings, not on what is best for justice or the public. The decision, except in cases of insanity, would be random, and even in cases of insanity there is no need for a special provision since it already means disqualification.
In New York, the Constitution has set an age limit to avoid investigations that could be uncertain or risky. The age limit is sixty. Most people now do not agree with it. This is not a good idea for a judge since their mind and ability to compare and analyze can remain strong beyond that age. Also, not many people live past the age of intellectual vigor. So, a limitation like this is not beneficial. In a republic where people do not have a lot of money and pensions are not available, it is not fair to dismiss people from their jobs after they have been working for the country for many years and need the job to survive. This should not be allowed without a valid explanation.
The Federalist 80:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
To judge accurately how much power the federal court system should have, it is necessary to think about what it should be responsible for.
It can be said without much argument that the court system of the United States should cover these types of cases: 1. Cases that come from laws that the US has made with their right to make laws; 2. Cases that have to do with the agreements of the US; 3. Cases the US is involved in; 4. Cases that could affect peace between the US and other countries or between the states in the US; 5. Cases on the ocean that involve maritime law; and 6. Cases where state courts might not be fair.
The point here is that something must be done to make sure that the rules in the Constitution are followed. The Constitution says that states cannot do certain things, like tax imports or make their own money. Something needs to be done to make sure these rules are followed. The best way is to have the federal government be able to stop states from doing these things, or to let the federal courts decide if the states are breaking the rules.
It is not possible to explain the second point in a clearer way than it already is. It could be said that the idea of having the judicial power of a government be the same as its legislative power is an accepted political belief. This is because there needs to be uniformity when interpreting national laws. Having thirteen different courts with the same power over the same laws would cause a lot of problems and confusion.
Less needs to be said in regard to the third point. Disputes between the country and its citizens should be handled by the national courts. This is the right way to do it, as it has been done in the past. It is also the polite way to handle it.
The fourth point is that the peace of the whole should not be left to a part. Other countries would hold the union responsible for any wrongs done by its members. In order to prevent issues, the federal court should have authority over cases involving citizens from other countries. This is important to keep the public faith and promote peace. It may be suggested that some cases should be decided on the laws of the local area, while other cases should be judged on treaties and international laws. However, it is difficult to tell which cases should be judged this way and which should be judged that way. Therefore, it is best to refer all cases involving foreigners to the national court.
The ability to decide who is to blame between two states, between one state and the citizens of another, and between the citizens of different states is just as important for the peace of the union as what was already discussed. In history, we can see how troubled and destroyed Germany was before Maximilian created the Imperial Chamber at the end of the 15th century. It shows us how powerful this court was in calming down the conflicts and restoring peace in the empire. This court was given the power to make the final ruling in any disputes between the members of the Germanic body.
A way of ending fights between states that the federal government is in charge of was looked at even though the system used has been not perfect. Besides disagreements about boundaries, there are other things that can cause anger and problems among states. We have seen this happen in the past with laws that were not fair. The new constitution puts in some rules so this won’t happen again. But even though this is true, it’s possible that other problems could happen that no one saw coming. Anything that can cause problems between states should be watched and controlled by the federal government.
It is important that the citizens of each state have the same rights and privileges as those of other states. To make sure this is enforced, the national courts should be in charge of cases where one state or its citizens are fighting with another state or its citizens. This is so that the courts, which are not connected to any particular state, can be impartial. They are also part of the union, so they will not be biased against it.
The fifth point does not need much discussion. Even those who are very loyal to the power of the government have not tried to deny the national judiciary the power to make decisions about matters concerning the sea. These matters usually rely on the laws of nations and often involve the rights of people from other countries, which are important for the public peace. The present confederation allows the federal government to have jurisdiction over the most important issues.
It is clear that the national courts should be used in cases in which the state tribunals cannot be impartial. No one should be a judge in their own case or in any case where they are biased. This is why federal courts are the best for disputes between different states and their citizens. It should also be used in some cases between citizens of the same state. For example, when there are conflicting claims to land from different states. The courts of either state could not be impartial. The laws may even have already decided the case in favor of the state. Even if the laws have not, the judges may be biased in favor of their own government.
Next, we will look at the particular powers of the federal judiciary, which the plan of the convention states it should have. These powers include: all cases in law and equity related to the constitution, laws of the United States, and treaties; cases involving ambassadors, public ministers and consuls; admiralty and maritime jurisdiction cases; controversies involving the United States; controversies between two or more states; between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states; between citizens of the same state, who claim land under grants of different states; and between a state or its citizens and foreign states, citizens and subjects. This is the full list of judicial authority of the union. We will now look at it in more detail.
First, there are cases in law and equity that arise from the Constitution and laws of the United States. These are the first two kinds of cases that can be taken to the United States. People have asked what is meant by “cases arising under the Constitution” rather than those arising from the laws of the United States. To explain, the states cannot issue paper money, but this restriction comes from the Constitution and is not connected to any law of the United States. For example, if paper money is issued, then the arguments about it would be a case arising under the Constitution, rather than a law of the United States.
People have asked why the word “equity” is needed. What types of cases can arise from the Constitution and laws of the United States that require a court of equity? There are many cases between individuals in which there may be fraud, accident, trust, or hardship. In these cases, a court of equity, not a court of law, is needed to help. For example, a court of equity can help if one party took an unfair advantage of the other. In cases involving foreigners, a court of equity is necessary to reach a just result. Another example is when agreements are made to transfer land that is under the control of different states. This reasoning is more clear in states where it is a common practice to have a separate court of equity.
The judiciary authority of the union is to extend…
Second, to treaties made or that will be made under the power of the United States and all issues that have to do with ambassadors, other public representatives, and consuls all fall under the fourth group of cases mentioned. This is because they are related to keeping peace in the country.
Third, to cases dealing with admiralty and maritime matters make up the fifth type of case that the federal courts can handle.
Fourth, to controversies to which the United States is a party. These constitute the third of those classes.
Fifth, to controversies between two or more states; between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states. These belong to the fourth of those classes, and are in some measure of the nature of the last.
Sixth, to cases between the citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants of different states. These fall within the last class, and are the only instances in which the proposed constitution directly addresses disputes between the citizens of the same state.
Seventh, to cases between a state and its citizens, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. These have been already explained to belong to the fourth of the prior classes; and have been shown to correctly be the subjects of the national justice.
This review of the powers of the federal judiciary shows that they conform to the principles that should govern the structure of that department. Even if there are some minor inconveniences, the national legislature will have the authority to make exceptions and regulations to fix them. We should not view the possibility of particular problems as an argument against a principle that is meant to fix general problems and bring general advantages.
The Federalist 81:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
Let’s go back to thinking about how the judicial power is divided between different courts and how they relate to one another.
The US judicial system will have one Supreme Court and any other lower courts that Congress decides to create. It is not likely to be argued that there should be one court with the final say. The reasons why it should be this way have been stated elsewhere and are too clear to mention again. The only thing people have questioned is if the Supreme Court should be a separate body or part of the legislature. This same debate has been seen in other situations. People who say the Senate shouldn’t be a court of impeachment because it mixes powers, are suggesting that all decisions should be made by the legislature or part of it.
The argument on which this charge is based is this: the Supreme Court of the United States will be a separate and independent body, with more authority than the legislature. This court will have the power to interpret the laws according to the Constitution, without the legislature being able to check it. This would be different from Britain, where the House of Lords, part of the legislature, is the highest court, and the Parliament or state legislatures can change decisions made by the court. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, would not be able to be corrected. Upon examination, this argument is made up of false statements and misunderstandings.
At first, there is nothing in the plan that gives national courts the ability to interpret laws based on the Constitution or more freedom than the courts of each state. However, I agree that the Constitution should be the guide for interpreting laws and that if there is a disagreement between the law and the Constitution, the law should give way. This idea isn’t unique to this plan, but is a part of the idea of a limited Constitution and applies to most, if not all, state governments. So, there should be no objections to the federal court system that wouldn’t apply to other court systems.
Maybe the strong point of the objection is in the organization of the Supreme Court. It is a separate group of judges, instead of being one of the parts of the legislature like in Great Britain and in this country. To make this argument, the people against it must turn away from the idea of keeping the different parts of power separate. Even if it is not completely against this idea, it is still not as good as the way the convention chose. It is unlikely that the same people who make bad laws would be willing to change them as judges. Also, having permanent judges is better than having judges who change all the time. It is not sensible to have judges with a lot of knowledge of the law be reviewed by people without that kind of knowledge. The people in the legislature are usually not chosen for their knowledge of the law, so it is likely that justice will not be served. People who are used to being on different sides will not be able to judge fairly.
We should praise the intelligence of those states who have given the judicial power to a group of people that is separate from the legislature. This isn’t a new idea – it’s already used in the constitutions of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. It’s great that these models have been chosen.
It’s not true that the British Parliament or the state legislatures can fix decisions made by their courts. Neither the British nor the state constitutions allow legislative acts to change a court ruling. The proposed Constitution doesn’t allow this either. No law or reason lets a legislature change a decision it made in a certain case. The legislature can only set a new rule for future cases. This rule applies to the national government the same way it applies to the state governments. There is no difference.
It is possible that the courts may make mistaken decisions that go against the will of the legislature. But this is unlikely to be a big problem because judicial power is limited and weak. Furthermore, the legislature has the power to impeach judges if it feels that they are overextending their authority. This is a good way to prevent judges from misusing their power, and should make everyone feel safe. Additionally, it is important to have the Senate act as a court for impeachment trials. This will help to keep everyone in check.
Now that we have looked at, and I’m sure gotten rid of, the things that are against having a separate and independent Supreme Court, I want to think about the rightness of having lower courts and how these courts will work with the Supreme Court.
The Constitution gives the federal government the power to create courts lower than the Supreme Court. This is done so that the Supreme Court does not have to deal with every federal matter. This gives the government the ability to create a court in each state or district that is qualified to make decisions about federal matters within its area.
Why might not the same goal be accomplished by state courts? Different answers exist. Even if the competency of these courts is accepted, the power in question might still be considered important for the national legislature to give them the power to decide cases related to the national constitution. It may be as much “constituting tribunals” to give existing state courts this power as to create new courts. But should a direct and explicit provision be made for state courts? I think there are good reasons against this. It is hard to predict how local spirit might effect the local tribunals for national cases. Also, state judges, who hold their jobs for only a short time, may not be independent enough to enforce the national laws. If they had original jurisdiction, appeals should be easy. I agree with the plan of the convention for appeals in different cases, but I think unrestricted appeals could cause public and private problems.
I think it would be good to divide the US into four, five, or six districts. Each district should have its own federal court. The judges in these courts could travel around the district and quickly handle cases. Appeals would be limited. This plan seems to be the best option and it requires that the power to create these courts should be in the proposed Constitution.
These reasons make it seem clear that not having this power would have been a big problem with the plan. Let’s look at how the judicial authority is divided between the Supreme and lower courts of the nation.
The Supreme Court is given the responsibility of deciding cases that involve ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, and states. Public ministers are representatives of their country and it is important for the peace of the nation that these questions are first heard in the highest court. Even though consuls are not exactly diplomats, they are public agents for their country and it would not be appropriate for them to face an inferior court.
Although this is not the main topic of my paper, I want to mention a fear that was based on incorrect information. It was said that if someone from a different state owned the public securities of one state, they could sue that state in federal court for the amount of those securities. However, these ideas are false, as the following points prove.
It is part of the nature of being a sovereign to not let individuals sue it without its permission. Every government in the US has this power. Unless the plan of the convention takes away this power, it will stay with the states and the danger won’t happen. We already discussed the conditions needed for a state to give up its power when we talked about taxes, so there’s no reason to repeat them now. Contracts between a country and individuals only mean something to the ruler and don’t give the individual the right to take action. If we let people sue states for the money they owe, how would anyone be able to make them pay? We would have to fight a war against them, which the federal courts don’t have the power to do.
We should go back and continue our analysis. We can see that the Supreme Court’s main power would only apply to two types of situations which rarely happen. All other federal matters would be handled by lower courts and the Supreme Court would just have the power to review the decision, unless Congress says something different.
The issue of whether or not it is okay to have an appellate jurisdiction for matters of law has rarely been questioned. But for matters of fact, there have been a lot of complaints. Some people in this state, who don’t understand the language and processes used in courts, think it will mean a change from using juries to the civil law system used in courts of admiralty, probates, and chancery. The word “appellate” is often used in civil law, but in New England it means something different; it means appealing to another jury until two verdicts are on the same side. The word “appellate” just means that one court can look at the decisions of another court, and decide if the law or facts were right. The way this happens can differ, and in a new government, it can be whatever the law says. This could mean having a second jury or going back to the lower court.
It is not possible for the highest court in the state to look over a decision made by a jury in an inferior court. Why? Because the highest court can only look at the facts as they appear on the record and make a decision based on the law. This is called having jurisdiction over both the fact and the law. Even though lower courts use juries to decide on facts, they still have jurisdiction over both the fact and the law. Therefore, if the facts are agreed upon in the pleadings, then there is no need to get a jury involved. My argument is that the phrase “appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact” does not mean the highest court has to review facts decided by juries in lower courts.
The Supreme Court has an appellate jurisdiction. The convention may have thought that causes could be decided in different ways. In some cases, the law can be reviewed, while in others, like prize cases, facts have to be re-examined. It would be hard to make an exception for cases tried by a jury because some states do that for all cases. It is better to say that the Supreme Court can review both law and fact, but the national legislature has the power to make exceptions and regulations. This will make sure that justice and security are served.
It’s possible that the Supreme Court could end up having the power to not reexamine facts in cases that were originally tried by juries. The United States legislature may have the authority to make sure this happens, but they may choose to only do this for cases that can be decided the same way at common law.
The amount of what has been seen so far in the judicial department is that it has been limited to those matters which are obviously suitable for the court. Not much original jurisdiction was given to the Supreme Court and the rest to lower courts. The Supreme Court will have the right to review both the law and the facts in the cases it is given, but with any exceptions or regulations that are necessary. This review won’t take away the right to a jury trial. If the national government is smart and honest, we will get good things from the court system without any of the bad things people have said would happen.
The Federalist 82:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
The building of a new government, with careful planning and wisdom, will bring up difficult and complicated questions. This will be especially true if the government is made up of different countries that come together. It will take time for this complex system to develop and understand the different parts, and to fit all the pieces together into a system that works well.
Questions have been raised about the plan proposed by the convention, especially about the judiciary department. People want to know if the state courts will have exclusive jurisdiction over cases sent to federal courts or if they will also be able to take on the cases. If they do have concurrent jurisdiction, what will the relationship be between the state and national courts? People who are smart are asking these questions and they deserve to get answers.
The principles from a previous paper show us that the states can keep all powers they had before, unless the federal government takes them away. This can only happen in three ways: if the federal government is given an exclusive authority in express terms; if the federal government is given a certain power and states aren’t allowed to use it; or if the federal government is given a certain power that states can’t use. Though these principles may not always apply to the judiciary, I think they are mostly true. As a rule, state courts will still have the authority they have now unless it is taken away in one of the three ways listed.
The proposed constitution has a part that seems to limit federal cases to federal courts. It states, “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress shall from time to time ordain and establish.” This could mean that only the Supreme and lower federal courts can decide the cases their authority covers. Or, it could mean that the US will use one Supreme Court and as many lower courts as Congress creates. The first option takes away power from the state courts, so the second is better.
The states and the US have concurrent jurisdiction over certain cases. This means that the state courts can hear these cases. It’s not clear what will happen with cases related to the US Constitution. The US could choose to have federal courts hear these cases exclusively. But, it’s likely that the state courts will still be able to hear these cases, unless the US legislature says otherwise. This is because the judiciary power of any government looks at cases between parties within its jurisdiction, even if the laws come from far away. When we look at the state and federal governments as part of one system, then it’s likely that the state courts will have concurrent jurisdiction over cases involving US laws.
What relation would there be between national and state courts if they both have jurisdiction? The answer is that an appeal would go from the state court to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Constitution states that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in cases of federal concern. This means that appeals can come from state courts too. The national and state systems should be seen as one. The state courts will help the national laws and appeals should go to the Supreme Court to make sure national justice and decisions are the same. The plan of the Convention is to make sure all cases of the specified classes are determined in the courts of the union. This means the words giving appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court should include appeals from the state courts.
Could an appeal be made from state courts to federal courts that are lower in authority? This question is harder to answer than the one before. There are some reasons to think that it could. The plan of the convention allows the national legislature to create courts that are below the Supreme Court. It also states that the judicial power of the United States will be in the Supreme Court and in other courts that Congress decides to create. It lists the cases that the judicial power will be in charge of. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is described as both original and appellate, but there is no definition of the lower courts’ jurisdiction. It only says that they will be lower than the Supreme Court and that they will be within the limits of the federal judiciary. It seems like it is up to Congress to decide if their authority will be original, appellate, or both. So, there is nothing stopping the establishment of an appeal from state courts to the national courts that are lower in authority. This would be helpful because it would reduce the need for more federal courts and it would help the Supreme Court keep its appellate jurisdiction. The state courts would then be in charge of more federal cases, and appeals in most cases could go from the state courts to the district courts of the union, not the Supreme Court.
The Federalist 83:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
People are against the plan of the convention that is popular in this state because it does not have a rule for a jury trial in civil cases. People who are against the plan often give false information about it, saying that it gets rid of jury trials for civil and criminal cases. This is not true. Trying to explain why this is not true would be pointless because the truth is clear and easy to understand.
Regarding civil cases, people have used very minor details to try and say that something not provided for has been eliminated. It is clear that not talking about something is not the same as getting rid of it. However, those who created this false idea have tried to back it up with certain legal principles that have been changed from their true meaning. It may be worth exploring the argument they have made.
The people who rely on these ideas believe that when the Constitution says something specific, it means that it does not allow for anything else. For example, they say that because the Constitution says that criminal cases should have a trial by jury, but does not say anything about civil cases, this means that civil cases cannot have a trial by jury.
The law says that when a court interprets a law, they should use common sense. So, if the law says that criminal cases must be tried by a jury, does that mean the court can’t allow a jury trial in any other cases? It doesn’t make sense to think that a law saying you have to do one thing means you can’t do something else that isn’t against the law. It doesn’t make sense to say that a law saying you have to do something in some cases means you can’t do it in other cases.
The Constitution gives the power to set up courts and decide how trials are held. For criminal cases, the Constitution says how they must be done, but it doesn’t say anything about civil cases. That means the government can decide how those are done, if it wants to. People say the national government can’t use juries to decide civil cases, but that’s not true.
From these observations, it can be concluded that jury trials in civil cases should not be abolished. The ideas of the people who are using these maxims are not reasonable and therefore cannot be used. Even if these maxims had a technical meaning, they still wouldn’t be able to apply to a government constitution. The true way to interpret a government constitution is by looking at the natural and obvious meanings of its provisions, not any technical rules.
Now that it is clear that the ideas being used are not reliable, let’s try to understand how to use them correctly. We can do this best by giving examples. The plan of the convention states that the power of Congress, or the national legislature, will only be used in certain cases listed. This means that they cannot use a general authority because it would be pointless to give a specific authority if they were meant to have a general one.
The federal courts have power over certain cases that are listed specifically in the constitution. If the list didn’t exclude all other cases, then it would be pointless, so the federal courts cannot do anything outside of the specified cases.
These examples show us what the maxims mean and how we can use them.
It is clear that the proposed Constitution will not abolish trial by jury. This is because the national judiciary will not be able to decide disputes between people. Such disputes will still be decided by state courts and laws as they are now. Land disputes, except when different states are involved, and other disputes between citizens of the same state, will stay with the state tribunals. Moreover, admiralty cases and most cases of equity don’t need a jury. Therefore, the trial by jury institution will not be changed much by the proposed new government.
The people for and against the plan of the convention agree on one thing: the value of trial by jury. Supporters think it is a great way to protect freedom, while opponents think it is the key to a free government. I have seen how important trial by jury is, and I think it is very important. We can all agree that it is useful and that it supports liberty. But I don’t think it is related to freedom in civil cases. I think the real way to prevent tyranny is to have a trial by jury in criminal cases, and the habeas corpus act. The plan of the convention covers these things.
Observations have been made that jury trials provide protection from unfair taxation. This should be discussed in more detail.
It is clear that the legislature has no control over the amount of taxes, what they are used for, or how they are divided. If the legislature has any power, it is only in the way the taxes are collected and the way officers in charge of taxes do their jobs.
In this state, trials by jury are rarely used to collect taxes. Instead, the government uses a quicker method called distress and sale, which is similar to rent. Everyone agrees this is necessary to make sure people pay their taxes. If a trial at law was used, it would take too long and cost more than the original tax. This would be a burden for taxpayers.
The officers of the revenue must act responsibly. If they do not, the law provides that the person can be tried in a criminal case by a jury. Any abuse of power by a public official to hurt someone, or any type of official extortion, is an offense against the government. The person who does this can be charged and punished depending on the situation.
The jury system in civil cases is important to protect liberty. The main reason is that it prevents corruption. It might be argued that the people who choose the jury, like the sheriff and clerks of court, could be corrupted more easily than the judges. But it’s likely that it would be harder to influence the randomly chosen jury than those chosen by the government. Even if this is true, the jury system still limits corruption by making it harder to succeed. For corruption to work, both the court and the jury would need to be influenced. This extra safeguard makes it more difficult to sway either one and helps keep them honest.
Despite my doubts about how important trial by jury is for liberty, I do admit that it is usually a good way to decide property issues. For this reason, if it were possible to set clear limits on when it should be used, it would be included in the Constitution. However, this is hard to do since different states have different opinions on the matter. Every time I look into it, I become more aware of the obstacles that kept the writers of the Constitution from including it in their plan.
The jury trial is different in different states. This makes a big difference in how sentences are given. In this state, we have some courts that use jury trials, like in Great Britain. In other courts, like the court of admiralty and probates, there’s just a single judge without a jury. New Jersey has courts of chancery, but no admiralty or probates. Pennsylvania has no court of chancery and its courts of common law have equity jurisdiction. In Delaware, it’s similar to Pennsylvania. Maryland and Virginia are like New York. North Carolina is like Pennsylvania and South Carolina is like Virginia. In Georgia, there are only common law courts. In Connecticut, there are no courts of chancery or admiralty, and their common law courts have admiralty and equity jurisdiction. In Rhode Island and Massachusetts, law, equity, and admiralty are blended. In the four eastern states, the jury trial is broader and there’s an appeal of two verdicts out of three on one side.
It is clear that the way that jury trials in civil cases are set up varies from state to state. This means that the convention could not have created a single rule that would have been applicable to all states. It might have been just as risky to pick one state’s system as the standard, as it was to leave the decision up to each state’s legislature.
The minority of Pennsylvania have suggested a way to fix the issue. They suggested saying, “Trial by jury shall be like it has been before.” I don’t think this would work. The United States, as a whole, is the subject of all general parts of the Constitution. Even though each state has trial by jury with some restrictions, it is not the same in all the United States. There is no current federal government that has a judicial power. If the suggestion was used, it would be unclear and ineffective due to its vagueness.
On one hand, the proposed provision would not accomplish its goal. On the other, if I understand its goal correctly, it would be inappropriate. I think its goal is that federal court cases should be tried with a jury if they would be tried with a jury in the state court. The inconsistent way that the same cases could be tried with or without a jury, depending on the location of the court and parties, is enough to make this option undesirable.
I do not think this is the biggest problem. I strongly believe that jury trials are not always the best choice. In cases which involve foreign nations, such as prize cases, juries are not able to properly investigate since they don’t know the laws and customs of other nations. This could lead to decisions that break the rights of other nations and could cause wars. Although juries are supposed to decide facts, usually law and facts are intertwined in such a way that it is impossible to separate them.
It is important to note that the way prize causes are decided has been included in treaties between European countries. This means that, in Great Britain, the king himself in his privy council is the final judge. This shows that it is not a good idea to include a rule in the constitution that would make state systems the standard for the national government. It is also risky to include any rule in the constitution that is not absolutely sure to be right.
I strongly believe that it is beneficial to separate the equity from the law jurisdiction. Courts of equity are mainly used to give relief in exceptional cases that do not follow general rules. Uniting the two jurisdictions together would mean every case would be specially decided, whereas separating them means that each court can keep itself within its limits. What’s more, the cases that go to chancery are usually very intricate and require a lot of investigation – something that would be hard for jurors who are only called on occasionally and have to decide a case before going back to their regular jobs. This type of trial is meant to be simple and quick, so the matter to be decided needs to be simple, but that is not the case with chancery cases which often have a lot of independent details.
It’s true that separating the equity from legal jurisdiction is unique to the English legal system and has been copied in some states. But it is also true that trial by jury has not been used in these cases. Keeping the trial by jury pure is key and it’s best to keep the court of equity and court of law separate. Trying to make the court of law handle equity matters may not be a good idea. It might stop the trial by jury from being used because the questions are too hard to answer that way.
It looks like there are strong arguments against having all of the states’ systems be part of the national court system, which the people of Pennsylvania may have wanted. Let’s look at how the suggestion from Massachusetts would help with this problem.
In civil cases between people from different states, any dispute that comes up in a common law case can be decided by a jury if either of the parties ask for it.
This concept is only limited to one type of cases. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Massachusetts convention thought that trial by jury was the only suitable option in this type of case. If this is not true, then it shows how hard it is to come up with a good solution. Either way, not having a regulation for this is not seen as a major problem.
Not all is equal in the courts of the states in the union. We do not have clear words to describe the types of cases that should be tried by jury. In this state, we know the differences between a common law and equitable jurisdiction based on the rules that England follows. In many other states, the boundaries are not as precise. In some, any case can be tried in a court of common law, and if either of the parties asks for it, it must be decided by a jury. This means that in one state a case is decided by a jury when one of the parties requests it. But in another state, the same exact case may not have a jury involved, since the state tribunals are different on common law.
It is clear that the Massachusetts proposition cannot be used universally until all the states agree on a plan about the laws for common and equitable jurisdictions. Coming up with a plan like this is a tough job and would take a lot of time and thought. It would be very hard, maybe even impossible, to make a rule that all the states would accept, or that would fit with each state’s laws.
One might ask why the Constitution of the United States did not use one of the state constitutions as a model? The answer is that it’s unlikely the other states would think the same of our institutions as we do. Each state would likely prefer its own. Even if the convention chose one state as a model, it’s uncertain which one it would have been. It’s been said that some of them would have been wrong choices. It’s likely New York or some other state would have been chosen. But even then, other states may have felt jealous or upset at this partiality. The opponents of the plan could have used this to raise a lot of local prejudice against it, making it hard to get it established.
It is sometimes suggested by people who are very passionate that a law should have been put in place that would make trial by jury mandatory in all cases. However, there is no other part of the union that has done this, and the reasons that have been discussed with the minority of Pennsylvania make it clear that this would have been a mistake.
Overall, the more thought is given to it, the more difficult it will be to make a plan that is not too weak or too strong, or that would not cause other issues in setting up a strong central government.
I think that it is clear that the trial by jury for criminal cases is well taken care of in the Constitution. We can also see that this same trial will be used for most civil cases. The Constitution does not take away this trial in any case. It would be tough to add this trial to the Constitution for the whole United States.
People who are knowledgeable about the situation will not be in favor of making jury trials mandatory in civil cases. It is possible that different ways of deciding property cases might be better in some cases. I think it would be beneficial to expand jury trials to some cases and limit them in others. Most people agree that jury trials should not be used for everything. There have been changes to jury trials in the U.S. and Britain that suggest that the former limits of jury trials were not ideal. It is difficult to say exactly where jury trials should be used and that is why it is best to leave it up to the legislature to decide.
It is now clear that in both Great Britain and Connecticut, encroachments have been made on trial by jury since the revolution, even though it is protected by the constitution. Those who say they are defending popular liberty are usually the ones responsible for these encroachments. In reality, it is the general nature of the government that can create lasting change, not any specific provisions. People of good judgement will not reject a plan just because it does not have certain provisions.
It definitely sounds very tough and unusual to say that there is no safety for freedom in a constitution that only provides for a trial by jury in criminal cases, but not in civil cases. It’s a well-known fact that Connecticut, which is usually thought of as the most popular state in the US, does not have a constitutional rule for either.
The Easy Federalist 
Leave a comment