PVL3702 ASSIGNMENT 1 2026 – DISTINCTION (Complete
questions & answers ) Due April
The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political
rights of the Constitution . . . [it] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely
judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy
of its judgments.
" What does the author mean by this?
- ANSWER-It is saying that we shouldn't be nervous about the judicial branch being too
powerful because it is the least dangerous of the three branches.
"This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves
incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of
power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two . . . that . . . the general
liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean, so long as the
judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislative and the Executive."
- ANSWER-This means that How weak the judicial branch is. Also, how distinct the judicial
branch is to the legislative and executive.
"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited
Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified
exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of
attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in
practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice, whose duty it must be
to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the
reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing."
What does the author mean by this?
- ANSWER-The author is showing that Federal courts cannot pass bills because they are an
independent branch
, "For there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the executive and
legislative powers."
What does the author mean by this? Which principle of government does this support? -
ANSWER-• Judging and deciding if laws & actions constitutional cannot be done without a
separate judicial branch, it cannot be part of the other two branches, or our rights will be
threatened, can force things w/no one to stop them• Separation of powers
"If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution
against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the
permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that
independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so
arduous a duty."
Why does the author believe that judges have permanent tenure (life term)?
- ANSWER-To be devoted to justice, they have to give the rest of their lives even if they're
qualified to do so.
Questions before the court: Marbury v. Madison
- ANSWER-1. Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions?
2. Can they sue for their commissions in court?
3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions?
Who was the decision in favor for? - ANSWER-Madison
Holding or reasoning behind decision: - ANSWER-ruled that although it was illegal for Madison
to withhold the delivery of the appointments, forcing Madison to deliver the appointments was
beyond the power of the U.S. Supreme Court.
questions & answers ) Due April
The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political
rights of the Constitution . . . [it] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely
judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy
of its judgments.
" What does the author mean by this?
- ANSWER-It is saying that we shouldn't be nervous about the judicial branch being too
powerful because it is the least dangerous of the three branches.
"This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves
incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of
power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two . . . that . . . the general
liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean, so long as the
judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislative and the Executive."
- ANSWER-This means that How weak the judicial branch is. Also, how distinct the judicial
branch is to the legislative and executive.
"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited
Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified
exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of
attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in
practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice, whose duty it must be
to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the
reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing."
What does the author mean by this?
- ANSWER-The author is showing that Federal courts cannot pass bills because they are an
independent branch
, "For there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the executive and
legislative powers."
What does the author mean by this? Which principle of government does this support? -
ANSWER-• Judging and deciding if laws & actions constitutional cannot be done without a
separate judicial branch, it cannot be part of the other two branches, or our rights will be
threatened, can force things w/no one to stop them• Separation of powers
"If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution
against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the
permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that
independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so
arduous a duty."
Why does the author believe that judges have permanent tenure (life term)?
- ANSWER-To be devoted to justice, they have to give the rest of their lives even if they're
qualified to do so.
Questions before the court: Marbury v. Madison
- ANSWER-1. Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions?
2. Can they sue for their commissions in court?
3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions?
Who was the decision in favor for? - ANSWER-Madison
Holding or reasoning behind decision: - ANSWER-ruled that although it was illegal for Madison
to withhold the delivery of the appointments, forcing Madison to deliver the appointments was
beyond the power of the U.S. Supreme Court.
