The first federal judges (justices of the Supreme Court) were appointed as a result of the Judiciary Act of 1789. There were no federal judges in 1787; therefore, there were no checks and balances to worry about.
The constitution makes it so with checks and balances.
The president would nominate judges, but the senate hasn’t to approve them
The president would nominate judges, but the senate hasn’t to approve them
The president would nominate judges, but the senate hasn’t to approve them
The President would nominate judges, but the Senate has to approve them. (Nova Net)
The system of checks and balances is a part of the Constitution. It guarantees that no part of the government becomes too powerful.
The system of checks and balances is a part of the Constitution. It guarantees that no part of the government becomes too powerful.
Under checks and balances system of constitution, executive branch "checks" legislative branch through veto power. Executive branch "checks" judicial branch through appointment power (appointing judges/justices).
Yes the judicial branch is part of the Constitution's check's and balances. It allows bad laws passed by Congress and signed by the President to be declared unConstitutional. And the President chooses future judges but they have to be approved by Congress.
An example of how Hamilton's ideas were expressed in the Constitution is that federal judges were given lifetime terms.Federal judges were given lifetime terms.
The legislative branch that approves Federal Judges is the Senate.
It would disrupt the checks and balances of the government's branches.