You must support your answer with reference to academic and judicial opinion, as well as developing your own argument. Raz and AV Dicey discuss the characteristics of what the law should be in their formal procedural definitions, whilst Fuller examines the content and morality of legislature. This essay aims to scrutinise both perspectives whilst questioning the possibility of the rule of law to co-exist in a legally sovereign and or democratic and non-democratic states today. Many argue that the rule of law is outdated and inapplicable to the modern world today. This contrasts starkly with Hobbesian vision of a monarch that is the embodiment of the law and thus can do whatever he or she wants with impunity.
Provide the Federalist 78 summary.
Federalist No. 78 - Wikipedia
During the creation of the Constitution in , Constitutional Framers were faced with the responsibility of crafting an improved court system after the failure of The Articles of Confederation. When analyzing the beginning stages of the judicial branch, we must necessarily look at the debates that took place between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists during the Founding. While both sides had radically differing opinions on the power and function of the judiciary, both sides agreed a better system was needed than that which the Articles of Confederation provided. Between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, the most notable debate was the power of the court to declare laws unconstitutional. According to the proposed Constitution, judges were appointed for life and their court rulings were not to be reviewed by another government branch. However, many of the fears expressed in Brutus XI are still valid today.
Federalist No. 78
This section of six chapters deals with the proposed structure of federal courts, their powers and jurisdiction, the method of appointing judges, and related matters. A first important consideration was the manner of appointing federal judges, and the length of their tenure in office. They should be appointed in the same way as other federal officers, which had been discussed before.
This is the first of five essays by Publius in this case, Hamilton on the judiciary. The heart of this essay covers the case for the duration of judges in office. This arrangement does not render the judiciary the supreme branch of government. Rather, it ensures that the Constitution remain the supreme law of the land. Publius contrasts this rule with that which applies in representative governments without a written constitution.