Federalist PapersAs this nation’s political system has evolved and matured, there have been numerous controversies about the laws passed by the Congress and the ways those laws have been implemented by the president and the executive branch. There have also been disputes about the separation of powers between the three branches, the relationship between the national government and the states, the rights of the people, and a host of other questions that arise under the Constitution. When such cases arise, they clearly fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. As Alexander Hamilton observed, it was necessary for the stability and future of the nation to “establish one court paramount to the rest, possessing a general superintendence, and authorized to settle and declare in the last resort a uniform rule of civil justice” (see Federalist No. 22). When the Court makes decisions in response to such cases, it is, for all intents and purposes, defining and interpreting constitutional law. Does it “make” constitutional law in the process? There are differences of opinion on this matter, but the Court has clearly gone beyond the strict “letter of the law” embodied in the Constitution in several instances. Whether its decisions amount to new law or merely interpretations and clarifications of existing ones is a matter of opinion.From Hamilton’s statements in the Federalist Papers, however, it appears that the Framers at least intended that the Supreme Court would stand between the other two branches of the national government and the people, preventing abuses of power and improper interpretations of the Constitution. Indeed, Hamilton declared it the duty of the Court to “declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.”
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License |