subject
English, 22.11.2020 23:00 mprjug6

Read the passage. excerpt from Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton In 1787 and 1788, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote the Federalist Papers to persuade voters to ratify the proposed Constitution of the United States of America. These papers included essays about all three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton focused specifically on the judicial branch. Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. 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. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.'' And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security. The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. How does Hamilton support and advance his purpose in Paragraph 2 by using the word feebleness in this excerpt? . . . that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches . . . This word allows Hamilton to stress the idea that the judiciary plays a naturally passive role in the government—reacting to the other branches—so its independence must be guaranteed. The word lets Hamilton suggest that the efforts of the judiciary are mostly ineffective, so it should not be linked to any other branches lest it negatively influence them. The word conveys Hamilton's belief that the judiciary's function will be irrelevant unless it is allowed to exist under the strong and guiding power of the other branches of government. The word captures Hamilton's view that the judiciary is of questionable value, so it ought to be granted complete independence so it can prove its worth to the government.

ansver
Answers: 2

Another question on English

question
English, 21.06.2019 17:30
Provide one specific change that malala struggled for. think of how malala describes change and what motivated her to struggle for change. write at one complete paragraph with a minimum of 5 sentences.
Answers: 2
question
English, 21.06.2019 18:30
Based on your knowledge of word parts what does the word intervene mean
Answers: 1
question
English, 21.06.2019 22:00
Read the passage from a vindication of the rights of woman. that the society is formed in the wisest manner, whose constitution is founded on the nature of man, strikes, in the abstract, every thinking being so forcibly, that it looks like presumption to endeavour to bring forward proofs; though proof must be brought, or the strong hold of prescription will never be forced by reason; yet to urge prescription as an argument to justify the depriving men (or women) of their natural rights, is one of the absurd sophisms which daily insult common sense. does wollstonecraft maintain an objective tone in the passage? yes, because she uses objective language such as “society is formed in the wisest manner.” yes, because she uses objective language such as “it looks like presumption to endeavor.” no, because she uses subjective language such as “though proof must be brought, or the strong hold.” no, because she uses subjective language such as “absurd sophisms which daily insult common sense.”
Answers: 1
question
English, 22.06.2019 02:30
In a group discussion, which statement most clearly uses evidence to support a conclusion? a) the author makes some good points, but i feel that he’s ultimately biased. b) the author proves that he’s biased when he uses terms like “silly” and “stupid”. c) the author obviously hates the way fast food tastes, which is why he’s negative. d) the author first criticizes fast food, and then goes in to criticize junk food.
Answers: 2
You know the right answer?
Read the passage. excerpt from Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton In 1787 and 1788, Alexander H...
Questions
question
English, 30.11.2020 20:00
question
Mathematics, 30.11.2020 20:00
question
Mathematics, 30.11.2020 20:00
question
Mathematics, 30.11.2020 20:00
Questions on the website: 13722367