In the tumultuous days following the American Revolution, a fierce debate raged over the shape of the new nation's government, especially the role and power of its judiciary. At the heart of this ideological battle stood Alexander Hamilton. His mission? To convince a skeptical public to ratify the proposed Constitution through a series of essays called The Federalist Papers. Among his most influential writings was Federalist Paper Number 78, published on May 28, 1788. This essay would become Hamilton's most comprehensive defense of the judicial branch under the proposed Constitution. But why does this centuries-old essay still captivate legal scholars today? At its core, Federalist 78 grapples with a fundamental question: How can we ensure that the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, is actually upheld? Hamilton's answer? An independent judiciary with the power of judicial review. He argues that courts must have the authority to declare laws unconstitutional, writing: "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts." He argued that when a law conflicts with the Constitution, judges must side with the Constitution as the fundamental law. This concept of judicial review wasn't explicitly stated in the Constitution. Hamilton's argument in Federalist 78 laid the groundwork for its establishment in American jurisprudence. But Hamilton's vision went beyond just defining the judiciary's role. He saw the courts as the guardians of individual rights against the potential tyranny of the majority. He writes, "The independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals." This independence, Hamilton argued, should be secured through lifetime appointments and protected salaries. Critics feared this would create an unaccountable judicial aristocracy. Hamilton countered that the judiciary would be the "least dangerous" branch, possessing neither the power of the sword nor the purse. Yet, he saw this perceived weakness as a strength. Without direct control over military or financial resources, the judiciary's authority would rest solely on the strength of its reasoning and the public's trust in its integrity. Federalist 78's influence can't be overstated. It provided the philosophical foundation for Marbury v. Madison in 1803, where Chief Justice John Marshall established the practice of judicial review. This landmark case transformed the Supreme Court from a relatively weak body into a co-equal branch of government, capable of checking the power of Congress and the President. Today, as debates rage over the proper role of the judiciary, Federalist 78 remains as relevant as ever. For law students, understanding Federalist 78 is crucial. It provides the historical context for the judiciary's role in the U.S. system and offers insight into ongoing debates about judicial power and interpretation. As you delve into constitutional law, remember Hamilton's words: "The judiciary... may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." It's a powerful reminder that the courts' authority ultimately rests on the strength of their reasoning and the public's faith in the rule of law.