Nine Tyrants
I sat intently in front of the television as the evening news was being aired. I then watched in despair as the newscaster announced the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. At the stroke of a pen, a law enacted by our republican form of government was subverted at the hands of a panel of nine, unelected judges. It is the duty of the judicial branch of government to interpret the law, but that is simply not what I it does. We are living in a country with a judiciary that is constantly driving a knife into our republic, and I fear that our nation is slowly bleeding to death because of it. The Supreme Court is detrimental to the United States.
Origin of the Supreme Court
No one can draw a perfect circle. We know this because we know how a perfect circle is supposed to look. Similarly, in order to know when the Supreme Court is overstepping its bounds, we must know what its bounds are. When we know what the Supreme Court is supposed to be, we will see how terribly distorted it is now.
James Madison warned that a judiciary that struck down law based on opinion would quickly become more powerful than the Legislature itself. When the Constitution was written, the authors explicitly prohibited a judicial branch that enacted policy (Barton 262-66). I think it is important to note that the United States’ legislative authority was identified in the very first clause of the Constitution. Article I, Section 1 states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Sometimes, when we want to emphasize how important something is, we say it is at the top of our list. I...
... middle of paper ...
... Publishing, Ltd., 2007. Print.
Barton, David. “Original Intent.” Aledo: Wallbuilder Press, 2008. Print.
Black’s Law Dictionary. 9th Edition. St. Paul: West, 2009. Print.
Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist, No. 78. “Selected Federalist Papers.” Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc., 2001. Print.
Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist, No. 81. “Selected Federalist Papers.” Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc., 2001. Print.
Levin, Mark. “Men in Black.” Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005. Print.
Levy, Leonard W. “Origins of the Bill of Rights.” New Haven: Yale UP, 1999. Print.
Savage, David G. “Supreme Court rules mandatory juvenile life without parole cruel and unusual.” LATimes.com. Los Angeles Times, 25 June 2012. Web. 6 August 2013.
Scalia, Antonin, “Supreme Court Agenda.” By C-SPAN. Washington Ideas Forum Interview. 6 October 2011. Web. Aug. 2013
Morgan, Robert J. James Madison on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. New York:
Government. "The Bill of Rights: A Transcription." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, 15 Jan. 2007. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.
Russell B. Nye: Fettered Freedom: Civil Liberties and the Slavery Controversy, 1830-1860. East Lansing, Mich., 1949
As more immigrants immigrated to the colonies and established lives in colonial America, the colonist began to incorporate their ideas of freedoms, rights and tolerance in legal documents. Some legal documents, such as Maryland’s Toleration Act, illustrate the colonists’ belief in freedom and rights often connected to democracy. Other official documents, for...
The Constitution was the first stepping stone in the national sovereignty of the United States. It is the supreme law that has been valued and upheld since its ratification in 1787. It holds the rights and freedoms of all Americans and gives structure to the government. To uphold this structure, the judiciary branch was established, alongside the legislative and executive, by the Constitution. However, the judicial branch did not always have the power and influence it does today. Because of the 4th Chief Justice, John Marshall, the Supreme Court eventually gained the power and ability to become coequal to the legislative and executive branches. John Marshall’s establishment of Judicial Review in the Supreme Court and his strong federalists
In William Hudson’s book, American Democracy in Peril, he writes about different “challenges” that play a vital role in shaping the future of the United States. One is the problem of the “imperial judiciary”. Hudson defines its as that the justice system in the United States has become so powerful that it is answering and deciding upon important policy questions, questions that probably should be answered by our democratic legislatures. Instead of having debates in which everyone’s voices are heard and are considered in final decision-making process, a democratic-like process; we have a single judge or a small group of judges making decisions that effect millions of citizens, an “undemocratic” process. Hudson personally believes the current state of judicialized politics is harming policy decisions in Americans. According to him, the judicial branch is the “least democratic branch”, and ...
Such precedent setting decisions are usually derived from the social, economic, political, and legal philosophy of the majority of the Justices who make up the Court, and also represent a segment of the American population at a given time in history. Seldom has a Supreme Court decision sliced so deeply into the basic fabric that composes the tapestry and direction of American law or instigated such profound changes in cherished rights, values, and personal prerogatives of individuals: the right to privacy, the structure of the family, the status of medical technology and its impact upon law and life, and the authority of state governments to protect the lives of their citizens.(3-4)
On June 26, 2015, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right in the decision on Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. This controversial decision overturned the law of more than 17 states. In the 5-4 decision, Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan voted with the majority and Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito were dissenting. At the heart of the controversy is the philosophy of judicial restraint and judicial activism. Was the Obergefell decision an example of judicial activism? Certainly, because it declared state laws banning same-sex marriages as unconstitutional. The Court’s decision, which was based on precedent and interpretation of the Constitution, was just.
In his influential 1957 Journal of Public Law article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker,” Robert Dahl argues for the Supreme Court's role as a policy arbiter, describing it as being pseudo-political, acting to contravene the political sphere and legislative maneuvering while itself remaining outside of political life. Even per the skeptical Dahl, the Court can be effective in shaping policy and thus be as effective a branch as the other two given certain circumstances. More inclusive evidence demonstrates the contrary; while the Court is able to judge a law or an act’s constitutionality, its powers to correct what it deems errors are nearly nonexistent. Gerald Rosenberg’s theoretical insight and methodological thoroughness brings Dahl, his methods, and his conclusions into dispute as he counters assertions of the Court’s efficacy in policymaking.
the National Digital Library. “The Bill of Rights.” The Library of Congress. 16 Oct. 1996. 2 Nov. 2003. http://www.memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html.
Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.
The court determines whether on not an action is constitutional or not through the process of judicial review. Not only do they keep the Legislative and Executive branch in line, they keep other courts in line. Many and very few cases require the Supreme Court to review and overturn decision. Example are the Miranda v. Arizona cases where the police was in the wrong by violating Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment therefore ruling in Miranda’s favor. Also the Weeks v. United States case was an example of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment being violated was again ruling in the defendent’s favour. Finally, the Plessey v. Furguson case was a little different really displaying the courts power to interpret laws and ruling in the prosecuter’s favour. The Judicial Branch is certainly not the weakest branch and has a more important role than many people
Judicial disagreements, conservative versus liberal or restraint versus activism, will continue to characterize the nature of the land’s highest court. Regardless, the Supreme Court will continue to serve as a “referee” regarding the actions of the executive and legislative branches. The battle between judicial restraint and judicial activism has been a significant part of United States Supreme Court history, and the conflict will epitomize President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination
[4] Hickok, Eugene Jr., ed. The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Virginia: University Press of Virginia, 1991
"Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789." The Avalon Project. Yale Law School, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.