Judges always stick by the Govt. right or wrong
The ideas of popular sovereignty and peaceable revolution developed side by side with the notion of judicial review. The earliest proponents of the three ideas found no conflict among them. As James Wilson said, if errors were found in government, the judiciary could correct them by upholding the Constitution; if in the Constitution, the people could act. Alexander Hamilton expressed a similar theory in the Federalist when he described the judges as intermediaries between government and people, although he rejected Wilson's conception of peaceable revolution.1 A committed institutionalist and an early advocate of government as administration, Hamilton viewed a constitution as an artifice intended for eternity. It violated logic and common sense to construct a constitution and then leave it to the whims of transient majorities. Constitutions were designed to guarantee security and stability for property and rights. To function properly, they required more permanence than absolute majoritarianism allowed. Hamilton concurred that all proper governments rested on the consent of the governed, but he denied the right of the people to change government at will. Changes must be made in accordance with the procedures outlined either in the Constitution itself, or in the laws adopted under its auspices. Thus, while Hamilton and Wilson agreed that courts had the authority to set aside unconstitutional governmental acts, they disagreed about the power of the people.
Other Americans, who misunderstood Wilsonian constitutionalism and repudiated Hamiltonian institutionalism, also dis