By: Joel Stephen Mattson
When Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist No. 78 in 1788, he laid out one of the clearest truths ever stated in American law: the judiciary has no force or will — only judgment. That means no judge, no court, and no administrative agency has any real power unless we give it to them.
Let that sink in. Every time a court forces someone into compliance without consent — especially in courts that operate outside the bounds of Article III — it violates the very constitutional foundation it claims to uphold.
Hamilton’s Bombshell: Courts Are the Weakest Branch
Hamilton wrote:
“The judiciary… has no influence over either the sword or the purse… It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.”
That’s not just poetic — that’s a legal fact. The courts were never given enforcement power. They were created as neutral bodies to interpret law — not to invent it, enforce it, or coerce anyone without consent. Unlike the executive, courts don’t command police. Unlike Congress, they don’t control money. They rely on voluntary compliance with their opinions.
In other words, if you don’t consent to their jurisdiction, they have no lawful way to force it on you — unless they resort to fraud, coercion, or color of law.
The Constitution > All Statutes and Codes
Hamilton stated it plainly:
“No legislative act… contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”
This sentence obliterates the authority of every unconstitutional statute, policy, or code enforced by state and federal agencies. If a judge, officer, or prosecutor relies on an unlawful statute to violate your rights, they’re committing fraud under color of law — not upholding justice.
This principle isn’t optional. It’s the backbone of our system.
The Real Job of the Courts
“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.”
In modern terms: Courts are supposed to block the government when it goes too far. Not rubber-stamp its abuses. That includes when police fabricate charges, when counties enforce taxes on patented land, or when magistrate courts deny due process.
Lifetime Appointments = Independence (But Only If Honored)
Hamilton emphasized the need for judicial independence:
“Nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office.”
But today, most state judges aren’t independent. They’re elected, appointed, or intimidated by politics. That means they’re incentivized to go along with unlawful statutes instead of upholding the Constitution. If a court is corrupted by politics, it loses its legal legitimacy.
If It’s Not Constitutional, It’s Not Law
Hamilton said:
“A constitution is… a fundamental law. It belongs to [judges] to ascertain its meaning…”
That means the Constitution always comes first — not administrative rules, not city ordinances, and not arbitrary mandates. Any time a court ignores this hierarchy, it violates its oath and steps outside its lawful role.
What This Means for You
If you’re dragged into court under a false presumption of jurisdiction…
If you’re charged based on an unconstitutional statute…
If your rights are steamrolled by bureaucrats…
You can fight back — not just morally, but legally.
Federalist No. 78 is your shield. Quote it. Use it in motions. Cite it in affidavits. Remind the court: it has “neither force nor will.” If it tries to act like it does, it’s operating outside the law.
How Joel Stephen Mattson Fought His Personal Case of Police Misconduct
When I was falsely arrested in 2023, the officers fabricated charges, violated the Fourth Amendment, and retaliated when I tried to file a complaint. I invoked the principles in Federalist No. 78 to destroy their case. They had no warrant, no probable cause, and no lawful authority — and the courts had no power without consent.
I exposed their fraud in court filings, used the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine to invalidate every downstream charge, and leveraged my constitutional rights like a battering ram. It worked. I’m showing others how to do the same.
What Others Have Done to Win Their Case
Many pro se litigants have won by citing Federalist No. 78 and challenging jurisdiction. Courts hate when people quote Hamilton because it exposes the truth — they can’t proceed without consent.
- One litigant had a property tax case dismissed after refusing to consent to Article I jurisdiction.
- Another reversed a family court judgment by challenging the court’s statutory authority and demanding Article III compliance.
- In multiple cases, invoking the supremacy of the Constitution has forced corrupt agencies to back down.
Next Article in the Series: Why Administrative Courts Are Not Real Courts
Back to Consent Trap Series Overview: Consent Trap Landing Page