Final answer:
Alexander Hamilton argued that the judiciary would be the weakest branch of government because it could only make judgments without possessing the power of the 'sword' or 'purse', making it the least dangerous branch. However, its role in interpreting laws and constitutional oversight has expanded, establishing its essential place in the system of checks and balances.
Step-by-step explanation:
Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist Paper No. 78 that the judiciary would be the weakest branch of government because it had neither the power of the 'sword' nor the 'purse.' This meant that the judiciary had no control over the military or the nation's finances, possessing only the power of judgment. Hamilton believed that the absence of executive force or financial control would limit the judiciary's ability to enforce its decisions, making it the least dangerous to the constitutional rights of the citizens. Despite this perception, Hamilton stressed the essential role of the judiciary in interpreting laws and maintaining the Constitution, a role that has significantly evolved to establish the judiciary as an equal pillar of government alongside the legislative and executive branches, engaged in a system of checks and balances.
The debate among the Founders reflected contrasting concerns about the judiciary's strength. While Federalists like Hamilton thought the Supreme Court would be too weak, Anti-Federalists feared it would be too strong. In reality, over time, the Supreme Court has demonstrated its significant interpretive power through landmark decisions that affect millions of Americans, like the decision on random drug testing leading to discussions on the scope of the Supreme Court's authority and its role as an independent arbiter in the government.