This Federalist paper deals with the jurisdiction of
the federal judiciary under Article III of the Constitution. Hamilton starts by
laying out the various types of cases the federal courts can hear. The first
two provisions (all cases arising under United States law, provisions contained
in the Constitution itself, and all cases in which the United States itself is
a party) seems, at least to Hamilton, to be uncontroversial.
The fourth point, which gives federal courts the
jurisdiction over cases dealing with the peace of the Confederacy (whether between the states themselves or the United
States and a foreign power), is necessary for Hamilton in order to ensure that
no part of the country has power to bind and cause problems for the whole.
Peace is the top priority and history provides examples of how small disputes
left in the wrong hands can get out of control and cause wars.
The U.S constitution is the supreme law of the land in the U.S. it creates a federal system of government in which power is shared between the federal government and the state governments. Due to federalism both the federal government and each state government have its own court system. The role of federal court is to provide a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Hamilton surely acknowledges the role of the federal courts to be the sole interpreter of the law of the land. This is where the debate comes in. Understandably, Peace was the top priority for the Framer: “No man ought certainly to be judge in his own cause, or in any cause in respect to which he has the least interest or bias.” One should agree with Hamilton. However, the interest of each state is different from each other depending on the cause. Here I can see the relevance of Hamilton’s argument in contemporary issues such as immigration laws. The current Arizona immigration law is a typical example. The issue is whether Arizona has the power to enforce its own immigration law or whether that is the exclusive role of the federal government. Arizona’s law includes provisions requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone detained or suspected of being in the country illegally. This is where the debate comes in. Are people being present in the soil of a state are the same time persons of the particular state or persons of the Country under the federal government’s jurisdiction? Who has jurisdiction of the population in general: the States or the federal government? It is not clear in the Federalist paper written by Hamilton.
ReplyDelete