Interpreting The Constitution: Who Decides?

The question of who has the final authority to interpret the constitution has been a subject of debate in the United States, with some arguing for the Supreme Court's judicial supremacy and others criticizing this view. The Supreme Court, as the highest court in the US, has claimed that it is supreme in the exposition of the Constitution, and has the power to declare laws unconstitutional. However, this claim has been contested, with critics arguing that it gives the Court a form of sovereignty that was not intended by the American people. The debate revolves around the interpretation of Article III of the Constitution, which grants the judicial power to cases arising under the Constitution, and the role of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution.

Explore related products

Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale Law Library Series in Legal History and Reference)

$35 $21.49

Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review

$25.58 $37.99

The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power

$42.83 $49.95

Constitutional Ambiguity and the Interpretation of Presidential Power (American Jewish Society (Dis))

$35.95 $35.95

American Constitutional Interpretation (University Casebook Series)

$285

Constitutional Interpretation: The Basic Questions

$17 $31.49

The Supreme Court's authority

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. It is usually the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution, which is fundamental law and therefore more authoritative than ordinary laws passed by legislatures and enforced by the executive branch. The Constitution is grounded in the sovereignty of the people, as stated in the Preamble: "We the People...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

However, the Supreme Court's authority is not absolute. Congress, authorised by Article III of the federal Constitution, can regulate the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction and may seek to amend the Constitution to overturn the Court's interpretation. The President also has the power to veto legislation as unconstitutional, and some Presidents have advanced their own constitutional interpretations. Additionally, the Supreme Court has been criticised for alleged partisanship, "slow-walking" important cases, and weakening corruption laws.

While the Supreme Court plays a significant role in interpreting the Constitution, it operates within a system of checks and balances, with each branch of government having its own roles and areas of authority. The judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws, but it depends on the executive branch to enforce court decisions. This separation of powers ensures that no one branch of government overpowers another.

Judicial review

The US Constitution operates within a system of checks and balances, with three branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch has its own roles and areas of authority. The judicial branch has the power to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve cases involving federal laws.

The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the country and has the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution. This was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), where the Supreme Court established its power to declare laws unconstitutional. In explaining the power of judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the authority to interpret the law was the particular province of the courts, part of the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

However, this view has been criticised by legal scholars and government officials who argue that entrusting the judiciary with exclusive power over the Constitution's ultimate meaning is problematic. For example, in the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), a judge observed that court decisions can be indecisive because of the judicial practice of dealing with the largest questions in the most narrow way.

Additionally, some US presidents have advanced their own constitutional interpretations. For instance, President Andrew Jackson argued that the President was the final interpreter of the Constitution for executive functions, dismissing the Supreme Court's decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

While the Supreme Court has a significant role in interpreting the Constitution, no particular decision can finally settle its meaning. Congress or the states may also seek to amend the Constitution and overturn the Court's interpretation through the process laid out in Article V. This has been done at least three times with the Eleventh, Fourteenth, and Sixteenth Amendments.

Checks and balances

The interpretation of the Constitution is a highly contested issue in the United States, with no one branch of government having complete authority. The system operates with a series of checks and balances to ensure that no one branch becomes too powerful. The three branches of government in the US are the legislative, executive, and judicial, and they each have their own roles and powers.

The judicial branch, and specifically the Supreme Court, has the power to interpret the Constitution and declare laws unconstitutional. This was established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, where the Supreme Court asserted its authority to declare laws unconstitutional, thus creating a system of checks and balances. The Court's power is derived from the Constitution, which is considered the "supreme law of the land". The Court's role is to interpret laws and apply them to specific cases, giving preference to the higher law when two laws conflict.

However, the Supreme Court's authority is not absolute. Congress, for example, can regulate the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction through Article III of the Constitution. Additionally, Congress or the states may seek to amend the Constitution and overturn the Court's interpretation. While less common, this has occurred at least three times with the Eleventh, Fourteenth, and Sixteenth Amendments.

The executive branch also plays a role in checks and balances. The President has the power to veto legislation on the grounds of unconstitutionality, which requires an interpretation of the Constitution. Some Presidents have also advanced their own constitutional interpretations through departmentalism, including Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, and Obama.

Critics of judicial supremacy argue that entrusting the judiciary with exclusive power over the Constitution is undemocratic and that the judiciary is an organ of power without legitimacy. They advocate for a different system, such as popular constitutionalism, or for the political branches to have the power to override judicial decisions.

The interpretation of the Constitution is, therefore, a complex and dynamic process involving all three branches of government, with each branch playing a role in ensuring a balanced and limited government.

Explore related products

A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law - New Edition (The University Center for Human Values Series)

$18.49 $19.95

Constitutional Interpretation: Powers of Government, Volume 1

$94.32 $163.95

The Silent Prologue: How Judicial Philosophies Shape Our Constitutional Rights

$24.99

The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

$41.97 $53

Legislative Authority and Interpretation in the European Union (Oxford Studies in European Law)

$114.99

Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution

$22.38 $32

Separation of powers

The interpretation of the Constitution is a highly contested issue in the United States, with no clear consensus on which branch of government has the final authority. The debate centres around the concept of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances that characterises the US political system.

The US political system is founded on the principle of separation of powers, where the government is divided into three branches—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial—each with its own distinct roles and areas of authority. This division of powers aims to prevent any one branch from holding too much power and ensures a balance between them.

The legislative branch, or Congress, is responsible for creating and passing laws. The executive branch, led by the President, is tasked with enforcing those laws. The judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, interprets the laws and applies them to specific cases, ensuring they align with the Constitution.

While the Supreme Court is often regarded as the final interpreter of the Constitution, this view has been contested. The Court's authority to interpret the Constitution stems from the Constitution itself, which is considered the "supreme law of the land". The Court's power of judicial review allows it to declare laws unconstitutional if they violate the Constitution. This power was established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, where Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #78, also supported the idea that judges should interpret the Constitution, stating that in the case of conflicting laws, "the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute."

However, critics argue that vesting exclusive interpretive power in the judiciary undermines democratic principles. Some legal scholars and government officials have advocated for a more distributed interpretation of the Constitution, involving the legislative and executive branches. They argue that the judiciary's claim to judicial supremacy grants it sovereignty that was never intended by the American people. Additionally, the President, as the head of the executive branch, has occasionally asserted interpretive authority, particularly when vetoing legislation as unconstitutional.

While the Supreme Court holds significant influence over the interpretation of the Constitution, it is not the sole arbiter. Congress can also shape the interpretation by proposing amendments to the Constitution, a process outlined in Article V. Additionally, the Supreme Court's decisions can be influenced by political branches and states, which may attempt to change laws or enforce similar laws to escape judicial review.

Congress's claim to interpretive authority

The interpretation of the Constitution has been a contentious issue in American political life, with various branches of government claiming the authority to interpret its meaning. While the Supreme Court is usually regarded as the final authority on the matter, Congress has also asserted its right to interpret the Constitution.

Congressional delegation is often used to justify the Chevron doctrine, which suggests that Congress purposely grants agencies interpretive primacy. However, this justification has been criticised as a fiction, and it is argued that it is more likely that courts grant agencies interpretive primacy rather than Congress. This is supported by the argument that the judicial branch should not be the final judge of its own power, as it would run contrary to the notion of a limited and checked government.

Some legal scholars and government officials have criticised the idea of judicial supremacy, arguing that legislators are not incapable of addressing the meaning of the Constitution. They advocate for a more democratic approach, such as popular constitutionalism, where the political branches can override judicial decisions. This view aligns with the concept of congressional rulemaking power, where interpreting language within its procedural context honours Congress's authority over its own affairs.

Furthermore, theories like congressional delegation and process-based statutory interpretation suggest that courts should take their cues from congressional practices and procedures. This includes considering legislative history and the rules and choices made by each chamber during the lawmaking process. By interpreting language from the perspective of a hypothetical legislator, courts can better reflect Congress's understanding of the language it enacts.

Frequently asked questions