By: Joel Stephen Mattson
The Truth About the Judicial Branch That No One Teaches
Most Americans assume that courts are almighty—able to hand down binding orders, impose fines, and execute judgments at will. But Alexander Hamilton shattered that myth in Federalist No. 78, where he made it crystal clear: The judiciary possesses “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.”
That single phrase reveals the truth that the system would rather you never discover: courts have no inherent enforcement power. They only function through consent.
The Judiciary Was Designed to Be the Weakest Branch
Hamilton wasn’t vague. He stated flat-out that the judicial branch has “no influence over either the sword or the purse.” It cannot make laws (like Congress) or enforce them (like the executive). The courts are bound to interpretation—nothing more.
So why do courts today act like kings?
Because most people unknowingly consent to their power by participating without objection. They show up. They answer questions. They sign forms. They accept the jurisdiction instead of challenging it.
That’s the trap. Consent turns powerless courts into tyrants.
Statutes vs. Constitution: Who Wins?
Hamilton wrote:
“No legislative act… contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”
And yet, state courts across America enforce statutes that directly violate constitutional rights. They uphold administrative codes over supreme law. They ignore the Constitution entirely if you don’t invoke it with precision.
But the law is on your side. When any statute violates the Constitution, it is void. Judges who enforce it anyway are breaking their oath.
Judicial Review Exists to Strike Down Unlawful Laws
The doctrine of judicial review wasn’t invented by courts—it was explained by Hamilton before the Constitution was even ratified:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is… the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute.”
In other words, the highest duty of a court is to uphold the Constitution above all else. If it doesn’t, it ceases to be a lawful court and becomes an administrative agency enforcing color of law.
Why Consent Is the Real Weapon
Without your consent, courts have no power. That’s not speculation—it’s constitutional fact. Courts require you to step into their game willingly. That’s why they avoid explaining your right to refuse jurisdiction or decline a magistrate.
They rely on ignorance and participation to create the illusion of power.
Hamilton’s words explode that illusion. His writings show that real power rests in the hands of the people—if they know their rights and invoke them boldly.
How Joel Stephen Mattson Fought His Personal Case of Police Misconduct
In my own lawsuit against Sheriff Pechacek, Officer Turner, and others, I used the principles of Federalist 78 to show that unlawful arrest, seizure, and prosecution lacked any constitutional basis.
I pointed to Exhibit A (body cam footage) showing the fabricated charges and the lack of probable cause. I cited Hamilton to show that any court relying on fabricated evidence or ignoring constitutional violations loses its lawful authority.
My refusal to consent to lower Article I courts, and my insistence on Article III jurisdiction, was grounded in these very truths.
What Others Have Done to Win Their Case
Other Pro Se litigants have used Federalist 78 to:
- Dismiss fraudulent traffic citations and administrative penalties
- Challenge jurisdiction in tax cases and civil enforcement proceedings
- Demand dismissal of cases in courts that never disclosed lack of Article III authority
- Force judges to acknowledge constitutional violations on the record
The key is knowing how to quote the law, demand the original constitutional structure, and withhold consent from any system operating outside it.
Hamilton Gave Us the Blueprint — Use It
“The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature… to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.”
This is your shield. Your hammer. Your proof that courts only function lawfully when bound by the Constitution.
Use Federalist 78 in every filing. In every courtroom. In every public challenge to color of law. Because the Constitution was never meant to be optional.
Next Article in the Series: What the Constitution Actually Says About Jurisdiction
Back to Consent Trap Series Overview: Consent Trap Landing Page