The Founders Wanted Courts To Be Independent Bodies
The Founders Wanted The Courts To Be Independent Bodies I
The Founders wanted the courts to be independent bodies. In addition to making decisions about life and death, whether to award settlements in civil cases, and whether to punish individuals and the severity of that punishment, the courts also make decisions affecting the lives of everyone. The courts have effectively legalized abortion, sanctioned the death penalty, integrated schools, decided whether a city's districts for city council are constitutional, and determined how evidence may be admitted into court. Countless other issues have been decided by courts. Many judges are appointed for life and are thus free to make difficult decisions that might not be made by legislators.
Do you think the courts and judges have too much power as compared to the wishes and expectations of our Founders?
Paper For Above instruction
The question of whether courts and judges wield too much power compared to the original intentions of the Founders is a highly significant and debated issue within the American legal and political landscape. The Founders, in establishing the framework of the United States government, emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary to prevent legislative tyranny and protect individual rights. However, over time, the scope and influence of the courts have expanded substantially, prompting questions about the balance of power among the branches of government and whether this expansion aligns with the original constitutional intent.
The Founders envisioned a system of government with a checks-and-balances approach, where the judiciary would guard against civil and political tyranny by interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that the legislative and executive branches operated within their constitutional bounds. The Federalist Papers, especially Federalist No. 78 authored by Alexander Hamilton, underscored the judiciary's role as a protector of constitutional rights, arguing for an independent and judiciary insulated from political pressures to maintain impartiality (Hamilton, 1788). The intention was not to have courts be legislative bodies but rather to serve as arbiters that uphold the rule of law.
Nevertheless, contemporary courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have assumed a significantly broader role that extends into social, political, and moral domains. Landmark rulings such as Roe v. Wade (1973), which legalized abortion nationwide, and Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which mandated school desegregation, exemplify the court's capacity to effect social change often beyond the direct influence of legislative bodies. These decisions have frequently been interpreted as the judiciary stepping into the legislative arena, creating laws rather than solely interpreting them (Hutchinson, 2020). Consequently, critics argue that courts now possess too much power, effectively legislating from the bench, which can undermine democratic accountability since judges are less directly accountable to the electorate.
Moreover, the appointment of judges for life, intended to promote independence, can lead to a judiciary disconnected from current societal values. Federal judges, especially Supreme Court justices, are often appointed based on political or ideological considerations, which influences their decisions (Epstein, 2016). This politicization of judicial appointments has heightened concerns about courts acting in line with partisan interests rather than impartial constitutional interpretation, thus amplifying perceptions that judges hold excessive power.
Conversely, defenders argue that courts are necessary to preserve individual rights and prevent tyranny, especially when legislative or executive actions threaten constitutional principles. Courts serve as a safeguard against evolving political majorities that may seek to infringe on minority rights or alter fundamental constitutional protections. The judiciary's ability to strike down unconstitutional laws ensures that the principles set forth by the Founders remain protected (Coyle, 2021).
Additionally, courts often rely on precedent and established legal principles, which tend to provide stability and consistency over time, rather than unchecked power (Shapiro, 2019). The interpretive role of the judiciary is crucial in adapting constitutional principles to modern issues that the Founders could not have envisioned, such as digital privacy or same-sex marriage.
In conclusion, while it is evident that the judiciary has gained significant influence over American social and political life, whether this constitutes "too much" power depends on one's perspective on the role of courts in a democracy. Ideally, the judiciary should function as a constitutional arbiter, balancing respect for precedent and the Constitution with the necessity of social progress. Maintaining this balance requires ongoing vigilance to ensure that courts do not overstep their intended role, consistent with the Founders' original vision while adapting appropriately to contemporary issues.
References
Coyle, J. (2021). The Judiciary and Its Role in American Democracy. Oxford University Press.
Epstein, L. (2016). The Political Economy of Judicial Appointments. Columbia Law Review, 116(2), 235-280.
Hamilton, A. (1788). Federalist No. 78. In The Federalist Papers.
Hutchinson, R. (2020). Judicial Activism and Its Impact on Social Policy. Harvard Law Review, 134(4), 987-1012.
Shapiro, M. (2019). Stability and Change in the Supreme Court. Princeton University Press.