of the power in the hands of the people, and acknowledges that a division of power is necessaryregardless of the fact that there is no monarch.Dr. Rush’s observations bring up an interesting fact: prior to the ratification of theConstitution, the judiciary of the United States was extraordinarily limited in scope. BernardSchwartz refers to this issue in his comprehensive work,
A History of the Supreme Court
,wherein he states: “In the Confederation, there was no separate Executive and the only federalcourts were those the Congress might set up for piracy and felony on the high seas and for appeals in prize cases,” (11). Schwartz is drawing on Article IX of the original Articles, which provides Congress the right of “appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committedon the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all casesof captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the saidcourts.” This lack of a powerful federal judiciary, however, would not last for very long.Dr. Rush, of course, was not alone in his opposition to the Articles of Confederation. Asmentioned before, the entire country seemed to accept the fact that the Articles were bothinefficient and impractical, and the political thinkers of the time became especially involved inthe problem.
The situation became so bad, in fact, that the Congress under the Articles had“virtually ceased trying to govern,” (Wood 359). This crisis and realization prompted themeeting of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, which began deliberating on a new form of government to replace that which had been established under the Articles. The Framers of thenew Constitution were in agreement with Dr. Rush, in that they believed that the “newgovernment they were creating should be based upon the separation of powers,” (Schwartz 11).Because of this, they started working with a blueprint for government that had been drafted by