executive departments would have.

The nature and extent of the judicial power of the United States, under the proposed Constitution, also concerned the Anti-Federalists. A person, calling himself "Brutus" and thought to have been Robert Yates, in a letter dated January 31, 1788, stated he believed that the powers granted the judicial department "will operate to a total subversion of the state judiciaries, if not, to the legislative authority of the states." He concluded:

When the courts will have a precedent before them of a court which extended its jurisdiction in opposition to an act of the legislature, is it not to be expected that they will extend theirs, especially when there is nothing in the constitution expressly against it? and they are authorised to construe its meaning, and are not under any controul?

This power in the judicial, will enable them to mold the government, into almost any shape they please...." The American Constitution: For and Against, J.R. Pole, pp. 58, 63 (Hill and Wang, 1987).

Alexander Hamilton conceded in The Federalist No. 78 that if the judges "should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." The Federalist, (B.F. Wright, Ed., 1961), p.493. He assured skeptics this would not happen, because, under the proposed constitution, the judiciary "has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." Id. at 490.

The Anti-Federalists were further assuaged by the proposal, and then the ratification on Dec. 15, 1791, of the following two amendments:

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."