Student's Name Instructor's Name Course Number Date Brutus 15 and Federalist 78 Brutus a Roman statesman argued that good behavior is a beneficial provision for England but is not appropriate for the United States of America. His argument was facilitated by the fact that the England judiciary level had more control and upright steady and impartial administration of the laws because all leaders embraced the good behavior. Works Cited Hohmann Hanns. “Judicial legitimacy and legal interpretation in the debate between Brutus and Publius.” Southern Journal of Communication 60.1 (1994): 75-86. Slonim Shlomo. “Federalist no. 78 and Brutus' neglected thesis on judicial supremacy.’ Const. Comment. 23 (2006): 7. [...]
The proposed Constitution provides that judges, once appointed, retain their office during "good behavior." Brutus concedes that this is a beneficial provision in England, but denies that it I should appropriate in the United States. Why? What is his argument for why holding office during good behavior is beneficial in England, but harmful in America? Publius, on the other hand, argued that it is just as useful in the United States as in England. What is Publius' argument in favor of the provision?