A recent political argument by Josh Hammer uses the words of Alexander Hamilton to support Donald Trump’s attacks on the American court system. This commentary, however, twists history by cherry-picking quotes from The Federalist Papers. It presents a dangerous idea that the president can ignore the judiciary, a concept that Hamilton himself warned against. This misreading of history challenges the very foundation of American democracy.
A Misleading Take on Federalist No. 78
Josh Hammer points to Federalist No. 78, where Hamilton notes that the courts rely on the executive branch to enforce their decisions. Hammer uses this to suggest the judiciary is weak and subordinate to the president.
However, this is only half the story. In the very same essay, Hamilton argues for a strong, independent judiciary. He saw the courts as a vital defense against government overreach and the oppression of minority groups. Hamilton believed judicial independence was essential for protecting liberty, not for making judges bow to a president’s will.
By leaving out this crucial context, the argument paints a false picture of Hamilton’s vision for America.
Did Hamilton Want an Unchecked President?
While Alexander Hamilton was a proponent of a strong executive, he never advocated for an all-powerful one. He understood the dangers of unchecked authority. In Federalist No. 1, he warned that leaders who start by flattering the people often end up as tyrants.
This is precisely why the U.S. Constitution includes a system of checks and balances.
- The Executive Branch (President) enforces laws.
- The Legislative Branch (Congress) makes laws.
- The Judicial Branch (Courts) interprets laws.
The courts have the authority to review actions taken by the president and determine if they are legal. The idea that a president can simply bypass this review goes against the core principles of American government. It is not a defense of the Constitution but a direct attack on it.
Trump’s Court Battles in Perspective
Hammer suggests that the large number of court orders, or injunctions, against Trump’s policies is proof that the courts were overstepping their bounds. But the facts tell a different story. The courts blocked many of Trump’s actions because those actions frequently violated existing laws and constitutional standards.
Other recent presidents have also faced legal challenges, but not nearly on the same scale. The high volume of injunctions against the Trump administration was a direct result of an executive branch that repeatedly pushed legal boundaries.
| President | Approximate Nationwide Injunctions |
|---|---|
| Barack Obama | 19 |
| Donald Trump | 55+ |
| Joe Biden | 20+ (in first two years) |
The numbers do not point to a rogue judiciary. Instead, they show an executive who was unwilling to operate within the established legal framework.
The Real Danger to the American System
The argument that the judiciary’s power should be reduced is a dangerous one for democracy. A system where a president can ignore court rulings is a system without accountability. When the executive branch undermines the courts, it weakens the rule of law for everyone.
This is the real crisis. It creates a path toward the very authoritarianism that Hamilton and the other founders worked so hard to prevent. A healthy democracy requires all branches of government to respect the authority of the others, especially the courts that protect our fundamental rights.
