Fundamentals: Part 1b -  Supreme Court
The Constitution and the Supreme Court
    The Supreme Court, like taxes, government and political
    parties, is a necessary evil.  One of the purposes of
    government as noted in the preamble to the Constitution
    is to “insure domestic tranquility”.  This can only be
    accomplished through the rule of law that  allows us to
    enjoy an ordered society with our liberties protected from
    encroachment by others. A Supreme Court is necessary
    as the final arbiter of those laws. However, like taxes,
    government, and political parties, the Supreme Court
    must be kept in check or else it gradually expands its
    powers to destroy the very liberties it was empowered to
    protect.

Since 1803, the Supreme Court has acted as the final arbiter on questions concerning the constitutionality
of laws passed by Congress.  This function of the Court is referred to as “judicial review”. The doctrine of
judicial review is derived from
Article 3.2.1 and 3.2.10 of the Constitution.  

Not all the Founders agreed with this application of the Constitution, however.  Thomas Jefferson in a letter
to Judge Roane, September 6, 1819 made this observation concerning the doctrine of judicial review,

    “….The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which
    they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal
    truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory
    only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes.  Independence
    can be trusted no where but with the people in mass….”

Jefferson again warned of the dangers of this doctrine in a later letter to William C Jarvis in 1820.

    “….To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous
    doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.  Our judges are
    as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for
    power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for
    life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.  The Constitution has
    erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and
    party, its members would become despots….”

Nevertheless, the doctrine has been firmly established in constitutional law by time and is not likely to be
reversed.  As Jefferson observed, Judges are mortal like the rest of us and subject to the same passions
and prejudices.  The result of this human characteristic is the emergence of “judicial activism” which has
become more prevalent in our judicial system as time goes on.  Judicial activism occurs when a court finds
meaning in words like “liberty” and phrases like “equal protection” that was never intended by the Framers.
The court then uses these newfound meanings to impose their own political, moral and social views on the
people.

The Constitution provides a number of remedies for judicial activism, often referred to as “legislating from
the bench”, but for political reasons, they are seldom used.  The first remedy is the power of impeachment
found in
Article II, Section 4.  Impeachment does not correct the infraction, but it does remove the judge or
Justice from office.  In our 200+ year history, only thirteen federal judges have been impeached and only
one Justice of the Supreme Court.  Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the house in 1804 but later
acquitted by the Senate.

The power of impeachment was considered by the Framers to be a sufficient check on the actions of the
Supreme Court.  Alexander Hamilton expresses this view in Federalist No. 81.

    “….It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the
    legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom.  
    Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then
    happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible
    degree to affect the order of the political system.  This may be inferred with certainty, from the
    general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is
    exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by
    force.  And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check
    which the power of instituting impeachment…would give to that body [Congress] upon the members of
    the judicial department.

    This is alone a complete security.  There never can be danger that judges, by a series of deliberate
    usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body
    entrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by
    degrading them from their stations….”  

The means for correcting misinterpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is also provided for in
Article V establishing the process for constitutional amendments.  The amendment process can be used to
change the Constitution, correcting or nullifying arbitrary decisions by the Court.  However this method has
been used only four times in our history.  The Amendments that specifically overturned prior Supreme Court
rulings were the
twelfth, thirteenth-fourteenth, sixteenth and the twenty-sixth.

In addition to these remedies, Congress has the power to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
under
Article 3.2.10 concerning any matter of law that may be brought before it.  There are three reasons
why the courts have been allowed to, as Jefferson says,
"reduce the Constitution to a mere thing of wax in
the hands of the judiciary"
.  First, there is an appalling lack of knowledge on the part of our elected officials
concerning the content of the Constitution.  Second, liberals have successfully used judicial activism to
establish laws they could never get through the legislative process, therefore they have no interest in
reining in the courts. Third, the American people and their elected representatives have been conditioned
to accept the decisions of the Supreme Court as the final word in Constitutional interpretation.

For these reasons the defense of the Constitution is left up to “we the people”.  We are the final judge of its
meaning.  It is up to us to make sure that the representatives we elect to office will take their oath of office
seriously and use the Constitutional remedies provided to exercise the necessary checks on the judicial
system.
Next
Back
Liberal Myth No. 2: The Supreme Court is the final authority as to the meaning of the Constitution.
Liberal Myth 3: General welfare as a separate power
Bookmark and Share
The Illinois Conservative