Alexander Hamilton offers five specific principles or situations in which the judiciary should have jurisdiction to overrule state laws and explains why the federal court should hold such responsibilities.

[5] As he puts it, "the States, by the plan of the convention, are prohibited from doing a variety of things, some of which are incompatible with the interests of the Union, and others with the principles of good government."

[6] He mentions only that a national forum is the only one proper to hear cases between a citizen and the United States.

As to the fourth set of cases, Publius explains that this relies on the proposition that "the peace of the whole ought not to be left at the disposal of the part.

[6] Within this same jurisdictional power is that to hear cases involving citizens of different states, as well as territorial disputes.

As to the fifth set of cases, Publius explains that maritime disputes are also relevant to the "public peace" and must be decided by the federal judiciary.

The federal court should hold much jurisdiction over the maritime cases because they involve other countries laws.

[9] Publius then moves to explain the differences between "law" and "equity", and how those concepts have been reflected in the language of the proposed Constitution with the word "cases" to mean arising from law and the word "controversies" to mean arising from equity.

[11] Publius concludes the essay with the affirmation that the drafters of the proposed United States Constitution have attempted to safeguard against all "mischiefs", but if those do arise in the judicial branch, there are checks in place to maintain order and to insure against impropriety.