Independent Judiciary
An independent judiciary was a hotly contested idea at the Constitutional Convention. Develop an argument analyzing whether or not an independent judiciary is healthy for a smooth-functioning democracy.
Articulate a defensible claim or thesis that responds to the prompt and establishes a line of reasoning.
Support your claim with at least TWO pieces of accurate and relevant information.
At least ONE piece of evidence must be from the list below
Federalist 78
Brutus I
Constitution
The second piece of evidence must be from a different source on the list above OR from your own knowledge.
Use reasoning to explain why your evidence supports your claim/thesis.
Respond to an opposing or alternative perspective using refutation, concession, or rebuttal.
Claim: An independent judiciary is crucial for a smooth-functioning democracy.
Evidence 1: Federalist 78
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argues for the importance of an independent judiciary. He states that the judiciary must be separate from the political branches to ensure impartiality and adherence to the Constitution. Hamilton argues that this separation of powers is essential to maintain the rule of law and protect individual rights. Therefore, an independent judiciary is vital for a democratic system that upholds constitutional principles.
Evidence 2: Constitution
The Constitution itself establishes an independent judiciary in Article III. It grants federal judges lifetime appointments, providing them with the necessary freedom to make impartial decisions without fear of political consequences. This independence allows judges to interpret the law objectively and fairly, ensuring that the rights of citizens are protected. Without this independence, the judiciary would be susceptible to political pressure and may compromise the rule of law.
Reasoning:
The evidence from Federalist 78 and the Constitution highlights the important role an independent judiciary plays in a smooth-functioning democracy. An unbiased judiciary is essential for upholding the rule of law, interpreting and applying the Constitution, and protecting individual rights. The independence of the judiciary enables judges to make decisions based on their interpretation of the law rather than being influenced by political or societal pressures.
Opposing perspective: Some argue that an independent judiciary can lead to judicial activism, where judges make decisions based on personal beliefs rather than strict interpretation of the law. They claim that this can undermine the will of the people and the democratic process.
Refutation:
While there is a possibility of judicial activism, an independent judiciary is the best mechanism to counterbalance potential abuse of power by the legislative or executive branches. The judiciary's primary function is to interpret and apply the law, and with an impartial and independent judiciary, the potential for political bias is minimized. Additionally, judicial decisions are not immune to checks and balances; mechanisms such as judicial review and impeachment ensure accountability and prevent arbitrary decisions. Therefore, the benefits of an independent judiciary in upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights outweigh the risks associated with potential judicial activism.
In conclusion, an independent judiciary is crucial for a smooth-functioning democracy. It ensures impartiality, adherence to the Constitution, and protection of individual rights. While concerns about judicial activism exist, the benefits of an independent judiciary outweigh the potential risks and are crucial for upholding the principles of democracy.