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/Thesis: An independent judiciary is crucial for a smooth-functioning democracy as it ensures separation of powers, upholds the rule of law, and guards against the tyranny of the majority.
Evidence 1: Federalist 78
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argues for the importance of an independent judiciary as a vital component of the separation of powers. He asserts that the judiciary must have "neither force nor will, but merely judgment," meaning that it should not be influenced by external pressure or political interests. Hamilton further explains that an independent judiciary is necessary to protect the Constitution, interpret laws objectively, and strike down any legislation violating constitutional principles. This demonstrates how an independent judiciary acts as a check on the actions of the other branches of government, promoting a balance of power that is crucial for a functioning democracy.
Evidence 2: Constitution
The Constitution itself establishes the foundation for an independent judiciary in the United States. Article III outlines the structure and powers of the judiciary, emphasizing the appointment of judges for life, subject to good behavior. This provision ensures that judges are protected from political pressures, enabling them to make impartial decisions based on the law, rather than succumbing to the whims of the majority or powerful interests. By safeguarding the independence of the judiciary, the Constitution upholds the principle of the rule of law, which is essential for a functioning democracy.
Reasoning:
The first piece of evidence, Federalist 78, highlights how an independent judiciary is integral to the separation of powers. Without an independent judiciary, there would be no effective check on the actions of the executive and legislative branches, potentially leading to abuse of power and erosion of democratic principles.
The second piece of evidence, the Constitution, demonstrates how the framers intended for a judiciary independent of political influence. By granting judges tenure for life, the Constitution ensures that they can make unpopular decisions and protect the rights and liberties of individuals, without fear of retribution or losing their positions due to political motives.
Opposing Perspective:
Some may argue that an independent judiciary can undermine democracy by allowing judges to become unelected policymakers, making decisions that are far removed from the will of the people. They may contend that elected officials should have the final say in shaping policy to reflect the preferences of the majority.
Refutation:
While it is essential to have elected officials who represent the will of the people, it is equally important to have an independent judiciary to safeguard democratic principles. Judges, appointed based on their legal expertise and having lifetime tenure, are better positioned to make impartial decisions based on constitutional principles, rather than being influenced by political considerations. An independent judiciary acts as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, protecting the rights of minorities and upholding the rule of law, thereby ensuring a truly functioning democracy.