Final answer:
Madison, through Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 78, argued that the judiciary should be selected differently due to its unique role in interpreting laws and protecting against unjust legislation, as well as its comparative weakness, having "neither force nor will, but merely judgment," requiring independence from legislative and executive powers.
Step-by-step explanation:
The two reasons that James Madison gave to argue that the judiciary should be selected differently from the other two branches of government are related to the role and the power of the judiciary. Primarily, Madison, through the writings of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, highlighted that the judicial branch's role is one of interpretation of the law, which is a key function as they work to protect the people from unjust laws. Furthermore, the judiciary was deemed the least dangerous because it possessed “neither force nor will, but merely judgment,” indicating that it has no influence over the sword (military) or the purse (financial resources).
Therefore, their selection needed to be different to ensure the judiciary remained independent and able to uphold their duties without the influence of the more powerful legislative and executive branches. This independence is crucial as the judiciary also acts as the final defense of the Constitution with the power to review laws and strike down those that are found to be unconstitutional, a principle established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison.