The Founding Fathers designed the Supreme Court as a crucial part of the federal system of checks and balances. Its main job is to interpret the law and ensure that neither Congress nor the President overstep their constitutional boundaries. But more than that, the Supreme Court plays a vital role in preserving individual liberty by protecting the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Let's break down what this means and how the Court has both succeeded and failed in its duty over the years.
What the Founders Intended
The Founders intended the Supreme Court to be the guardian of the Constitution. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, the judiciary was to be the "least dangerous" branch of government because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse." In other words, the Court had no military power (like the executive branch) and no financial power (like the legislative branch). Its only power was its ability to interpret the law and ensure that the government stayed within its constitutional limits.
Hamilton believed the Court's role was to act as a check on the other branches to prevent tyranny. By making sure laws passed by Congress or actions taken by the President were constitutional, the Supreme Court would protect the liberties of the people.
How the Court Protects Liberty
Throughout history, the Supreme Court has stepped in to protect individual freedoms when other branches of government have overreached. One of the Court’s key powers is judicial review, which allows it to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. This power was established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
The Court has used this power to protect freedom of speech, religious liberty, and equal protection under the law. For instance, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, protecting the right to equal treatment for all citizens. Similarly, in Roe v. Wade (1973), the Court recognized a woman’s right to privacy regarding reproductive decisions (though this decision has been controversial and was later overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022).
Where the Court Has Fallen Short
While the Supreme Court has been instrumental in preserving liberty, it hasn’t always gotten it right. There have been times when the Court has allowed the government to overstep its bounds, infringing on individual rights. A clear example is Korematsu v. United States (1944), where the Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. This decision allowed the government to violate the civil liberties of thousands of people based solely on their race.
Similarly, in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court upheld racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine, a decision that denied equal rights to African Americans for decades until it was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education.
How We Can Return to the Founders' Vision
To restore the Supreme Court’s original role as a protector of liberty, we must demand that it returns to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. The Court should focus on its primary job: ensuring that laws align with the Constitution’s clear language and original intent. Judicial activism, where judges make decisions based on personal beliefs or perceived social needs, undermines this role and leads to inconsistent protection of rights.
By respecting the limits set by the Constitution, the Supreme Court can continue to serve as a bulwark against government overreach, just as the Founders intended.
Comments