c



  



Madison, firstly, defines that factions are groups of people who gather together to protect and

promote their special economic interests and political opinions. The government, however, is

able to control the violence and damage caused by factions. Of course, such control of these

factions would not be necessary had not both the supporters and opponents of factions express

concern with the political instability produced by rival factions. Given the nature of man,

factions are inevitable. Madison states that the most important source of factions, despite

differences in wealth and differences in opinion, is the unequal distribution in property. Thus,

Madison states that there are all but two ways to control the factions.

The first method to control factions would be to remove its causes²keep everything

equal. Simply put, in Madison¶s eyes, it is impossible. There are only two ways to remove the

causes of a faction: destroy liberty or give every citizen the same opinions, passions, and

interests. However, destroying liberty is a ³cure worse than the disease itself´ and to give every

citizen the same opinions, passions, and interests is not pragmatic. Inasmuch as the first method

goes, the second is just as impractical. The causes of factions are thus part of the nature of man

and we must deal with their effects and accept their existence. The government created by the

Constitution controls the damage caused by such factions.

Furthermore, Madison goes on to talk about the effectiveness of factions. He describes

that large factions will be numerous in large republics but, due to sheer size, will be weaker than

in small, direct democracies where it is easier for factions to muster up their strength. He
finalizes his points in saying that the immediate object of the constitution is to bring the present

thirteen states into a secure union.



Hamilton writes the importance of an independent judicial branch and the meaning of judicial review. His

thesis revolves around three main points that he describes: The mode of appointing the judges, the tenure

by which they are to hold their places, and the partition of the judiciary authority between different

courts²and their relations to each other.

Firstly, Hamilton describes that the mode of appointing the judges is in the same mode as appointing

officers of the Union in general. He does not go any further than that.

However, for the tenure by which the judges are to hold their places, Hamilton goes into deep discussion.

Hamilton appears to agree with permanency in office²that federal judges can hold their office for life,

subject to good behavior.

Lastly, Hamilton goes on to talk about the different branches of the government, the weakest, the judicial

branch, and the separation of power in the government. The judicial branch is undoubtedly the weakest

branch, for it possesses only the power to judge, not to act. Its judgments or decisions depend upon the

executive branch to carry them out. Furthermore, the Constitution imposes certain restrictions on the

Congress that is designed to protect individual liberties; however, unless the courts are independent and

have the power to declare laws in violation of the Constitution null, those protections are worthless. The

power of the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional does not make the judicial branch superior

to the legislative branch. In fact, Hamilton argues that the courts are merely the arbiters between the

legislative branch and the people; the courts are to interpret the laws and prevent the legislative branch

from becoming µoverpowered¶.

Inasmuch as courts go, the independence of the courts is necessary to protect the rights of individuals

against factions. It is imperative that the judicial branch ensures that the citizens are secured of their rights,

and protected from people, both in and outside the government, who work against the peoples¶ interests.





After listening to and watching the Kagan Hearings, I¶ve noticed five specific topics that she was

questioned about and answered to. Although she has already been sworn into justice, I¶ve learned many

things about this woman that I did not exactly agree with, nor like.

Of course, getting sworn into Justice is no walk in the park. The members of the senate, especially

Graham and Grassley, pressed Kagan on the nature of her political ideology and her approach to legal

analysis. Although, I must admit, she shined a brighter color than the dull gem she seemed when asked

what she would look to, to interpret the Constitution. I particularly agree with her on this point because

just one viewpoint and interpretation of the constitution would hardly suffice nor do justice.

However, I found it very ironic that the very system she is trying to now join, she fought. During her

tenure as Dean of Harvard Law School facilities, she denied military recruiters equal access to the

facilities. In addition, she refuses to admit that she knowingly violated the demands of federal law. It¶s

quite silly how she later argues that it was more important to uphold Harvard¶s non-discrimination policy

than to follow  that the  !  upheld, in a 

  decision.

Furthermore, I am a Christian; thus, by nature, gay rights is supposed to be wrong to me. Kagan on the

other hand, when asked about the Defense of Marriage Act, under which states don¶t have to recognize

same-sex marriages performed in other states, said she would defend the act. I didn¶t particularly agree

with this, only because my religion obligates me to. However, this is a new insight into her ideals. If she

is to be a new justice, at the very least, she could be very open, right?
Overall, 2 bonus points and an applause for the new justice. I wonder what new interpretations and

changes she will bring.