Founders' Vision: Protecting Federal Judges In The Constitution

The founders of the United States believed that establishing a national judiciary was one of their most important tasks. They thought that the independence of federal judges would protect their ability to uphold the law. The Constitution is clear that the federal courts have the 'judicial power of the United States', not the President, Congress, or the states. This independence is protected by lifetime tenure, which means that judges will have the final word.

Explore related products

Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution

$22.38 $32

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The Essential Scalia: On the Constitution, the Courts, and the Rule of Law

$26.9 $35

A Brief Enquiry Into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government: Being a Review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; pp. 1-129

$14.95

A Brief Inquiry Into The True Nature And Character Of Our Federal Government: Being A Review Of Judge Story's Commentaries On The Constitution Of The United States

$36.95

The Constitution in Exile: How The Federal Government Has Seized Power By Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land

$17.86 $25.99

Independence of federal judges

The founders of the US Constitution protected the independence of federal judges because they believed that this independence would protect their ability to uphold the law. The Constitution is clear that the federal courts have the 'judicial power of the United States' – not the President, not Congress, and not the states.

The founders of the new nation believed that the establishment of a national judiciary was one of their most important tasks. They established a Federal court system through the Judiciary Act, signed by President Washington in 1789.

The principle of judicial independence is maintained by the fact that judges have lifetime tenure, which means that their independence is protected. This means that judges, including potentially the Supreme Court, will have the final word.

The power of judicial review has been criticised as enabling the courts to 'mold the government into almost any shape they please'. However, it is one thing to say that courts may and should interpret the Constitution, and strike down laws and official actions that are inconsistent with it, but what if Congress, or the President, or state legislators and governors, disagree with the courts' interpretation?

Judicial review

The founders of the United States believed that establishing a national judiciary was one of their most important tasks. They wanted to protect federal judges' independence, which they thought would protect their ability to uphold the law.

The principle of judicial independence is maintained by the lifetime tenure of judges, which allows citizens to appeal decisions made by other officials to a judge whose independence is protected. This means that judges, including the Supreme Court, will have the final word.

Critics of the Constitution have argued that the power of judicial review gives too much power to the courts, enabling them to "mold the government into almost any shape they please". This is still debated today, as it raises questions about what happens when the courts' interpretation of the Constitution differs from that of Congress, the President, or state legislators and governors.

Federal court system

The founders of the United States believed that establishing a national judiciary was one of their most important tasks. They wanted to protect federal judges' independence and ability to uphold the law, even if other branches of government disagreed with their interpretation.

The Constitution is clear that the federal courts have the 'judicial Power of the United States', not the President, Congress, or the states. This means that the federal courts can decide what other branches may or may not do and can overturn policy choices made by elected officials.

The founders gave federal judges lifetime tenure to protect their independence. This means that judges, including the Supreme Court, will have the final word on legal disputes, even if other officials disagree.

At the time the Constitution was adopted, there were no federal police forces, but there were tax collectors, customs inspectors, and army paymasters who had to make decisions that were similar to those made by judges. Today, there are thousands of federal employees who hear millions of cases, and important federal programs like Social Security and Medicare depend on these employees.

Explore related products

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States

$15.95 $5.99

Brandeis and the Progressive Constitution: Erie, the Judicial Power, and the Politics of the Federal Courts in Twentieth-Century America

$82

Timothy B. Dyk: The Education of a Federal Judge

$37.99 $40

A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law - New Edition (The University Center for Human Values Series)

$18.49 $19.95

The Federal Judiciary: Strengths and Weaknesses

$37.49 $42

A Brief Enquiry Into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government: Being a Review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States

$2.94 $11.02

Federal employees and their judge-like powers

The founders of the United States believed that the establishment of a national judiciary was one of their most important tasks. They wanted to protect federal judges' independence, which they thought would protect their ability to uphold the law. The Constitution is clear about who has “the judicial Power of the United States”: the federal courts do—not the President, not the Congress, and not the states.

Federal employees have some judge-like powers. There was no federal police force when the Constitution was adopted, but there were tax collectors, customs inspectors, and army paymasters, and they all had to make some decisions that were a little judge-like. Today, there are thousands of federal employees like this, hearing millions of cases, often in formal settings that resemble courtroom trials. Important federal programs, like Social Security and Medicare, could not operate without employees like that.

The principle of judicial independence

Judicial independence means that all branches and officials of the federal government are constrained by the Constitution that "We the People" established. Federal courts have the "judicial Power of the United States", not the President, Congress, or the states. This means that judges, including the Supreme Court, will have the final word.

The Constitution is clear about the power of the federal courts, but critics of the Constitution have said that the power of judicial review would "enable [the courts] to mold the government into almost any shape they please". This is still debated today. After all, it is one thing to say that courts may and should interpret the Constitution and strike down laws and official actions that are inconsistent with it, but what if Congress or the President disagrees with the courts' interpretation?

When the Constitution was adopted, there were tax collectors, customs inspectors, and army paymasters, and they all had to make some decisions that were a little judge-like. Today, there are thousands of federal employees like this, hearing millions of cases, often in formal settings that resemble courtroom trials. Important federal programs, like Social Security and Medicare, could not operate without employees like that.

Frequently asked questions