-there is a problem with factions (pg 16)-Madison rejected Jefferson's proposal of frequent election because it would create more competition between the feds and anti-feds-Jefferson preferred more turbulence -Madison saw a direct democracy as dangerous for the minority and rather preferred a big repub.-Fed. 57 Madison stresses on "wisdom" and "virtue" for the representatives-bi-cameralism ensures that some representatives are close to the people while others are not so close-Fed 51-stresses sep. of powers-election by the people-except for the judiciary because in order to keep independence they must be separate from the individuals who elect them-if the people elect them then they can have much influence on them-madisonian republicanism-fed. allows that state gov'ts provide protection against federal encroachments-complex system of checks:-national representation-bi-cameralism-indirect elections-distribution of powers-fed-state relationship-the articles of confederation proved to result in risk of private property because of factions-judicial review is inferred by the constitution because the court was intended to ensure that areas marked off from politics would not be subject to political revision-there had to be a realm of law separate from that of politics to protect against temporary majoritarian overhaul-in reading this information, we have to keep a few problems in mind:1. The complexity of history versus the simplification of theory-basically, we cannot know what the framers were thinking when they made certain decisions.2. Republican and Liberal theory-the historical concept of republicanism focussed on small-scale democracy-liberalism focusses more on personal liberties3. Republican theory and judicial review-they oppose each other4. Problems with deliberation and direct democracy-it could be elitist and they could not really be interested in the common good 5. Adapting or living with an old constitution-from the 18th century on the system of checks and balances has been altered and even the fed. gov't hold some powers that were originally meant for the states6. "Constitutional moments" revisited-a suggested argument: we have a dualist democracy where constitutional change occurs at constitutional moments involving popular mobilization: -the founding period-the civil war-the new deal era-Marshall's justifications for judicial review:1. a written constitution-two possible issues: is the national gov't binder by the constitution? and are the courts authorized to interpret the constitution against those of other branches of gov't?2. notions of judicial role-the ordinary role of the courts is to interpret the law3. Supremacy clause4. grant of jurisdiction-the grant of jurisdiction would be meaningless if the courts did not have the power to examine the constitutionality of acts of congress5. judges oath-Marshall argues that judges should be trusted because they are under oath-this is weak because all governmental officers take oaths to uphold the constitution-fed. 78-any act of a delegated authority must be in adherence to the authority that delegated them-the constitution must be preferred over statutes-same as the intention of the people to the intention of their agents(representatives) -Martin v. Hunter's Lesee (VA 1816)-Hunter claimed land pursuant to a grant from VA in 1789, which took away British land. Martin argued that the act was contrary, and therefore ineffective, tothe treaties between the US and England.-A trial court held in favor of Martin but then a VA appellate court reversed the decision, then the SCOTUS overturned that decision and remanded the case back to the appellate court-VA argued that the 1789 Jud. Act unconstitutionally placed the the SC in direct control of another sovereign state (VA).-Justice Story opinion of the court-if the state's arg. was valid then the constitution had to have enumerated that the jurisdiction of the state courts would be exclusive of state state tribunals, which it didn't. (ASK DYNIA- PG 39 #1)-it is obvious that the framers anticipated that cases within the judicial cognizance of the US would arise in state courts in the exercise of their original jurisdiction.-so that state courts can help uphold the constitution-also, all judges must be bound by the constitution (Art. 6)-so, the fed. courts have to make sure that they are doing thiscorrectly-it is wrong to suppose that the constitution does not apply to the states-b/c there are clear provisions in the constit. (esp. Art. 1 sect. 10)-there is an importance and necessity for laws that will have constitutional meaning, to have uniformity throughout the whole of the united states, otherwise if states have very different laws for constitutionally binding rights then there would be chaos.-this is also consistent with the most sincere respect for state tribunals. -Supreme Court Review of State Courts and State Laws1. SC review of State Court Decisions--underlying concerns-withtout a revising authority (according to Justice Story), the fed. system would make possible "jarring and discordant judgement"-SC review of state courts decisions, in this view, is to ensure uniformity in federal law-the VA state judges in the case had several claims:1. Even if the constit. did bind state judges, one sovereign could notcontrol another sovereign 2. Other devices are available to avoid the lack of uniformity, such as congress passing laws about the SC appellate jurisdiction for cases involving a fed. question-they argued that Congress had to approach this problem by creating other lower federal court. But the SC argued that the more direct mechanism of control, namely appellate jurisdiction, is constitutionally permissible.-another arg. about the need for SC review of state courts is that state judges do not have the independence that fed. judges have (like consistent salary and life tenure) and so the state judges might be more influenced by politics and money and might also be especially hostile toclaims of fed. rights-another arg. is that fed. judges have more expertise with dealing with fed. constitutional questions than state judges and are more competent in analyzing complex and often conflicting lines of authority and in producing clearly written, persuasive opinions.2. SC review of State Laws--constitutional basis-Note: the Martin case did not deal with state law, but instead a state court decision-but elects oaf the SC's reasoning can apply to the