The Constitutional Conscience: Who Guards Our Freedoms?

The concept of a constitutional conscience is a fascinating aspect of legal and political philosophy. In the Indian context, the Constitution is regarded as the conscience-keeper of the nation, allowing for amendments to meet challenges while preserving its basic structure and principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. In the United States, the interpretation of the Constitution and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding it have been subjects of debate, as reflected in the Federalist Papers and the work of scholars like H. Jefferson Powell, who emphasizes the importance of individual conscience in constitutional decision-making. The term Keeper of the King's Conscience historically referred to the Lord Chancellor in England, responsible for ensuring the monarch's decisions were just and fair.

Explore related products

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$237.39 $359

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.38 $126.95

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$296.95

The role of the judiciary

The judiciary plays a crucial role in safeguarding the constitutional conscience. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, emphasised the independence and weakness of the judiciary relative to other branches of government. He argued that the judiciary's inability to physically enforce laws without the executive or legislative branches made it the "least dangerous" to political rights. Hamilton advocated for the permanence of judicial office, ensuring the judiciary's independence in decision-making. Federalist No. 81, also authored by Hamilton, outlined the necessity of a supreme court to protect citizens' rights and ensure fair and equal laws across the country.

The judiciary's role in preserving the constitutional conscience is particularly evident in the United States, where the Federalist Papers, including Federalist No. 81, serve as a foundation for constitutional interpretation. The judiciary's independence is essential in a limited constitution, as it ensures that acts contrary to the Constitution are declared void. This independence allows judges to make decisions based on their interpretation of the Constitution and their individual conscience, as argued by H. Jefferson Powell in "Constitutional Conscience: The Moral Dimension of Judicial Decision."

Powell suggests that judges should exercise constitutional virtues such as candour, intellectual honesty, and humility when facing controversial decisions with multiple constitutionally defensible resolutions. He emphasises the importance of good faith and integrity in judicial decision-making, linking individual virtues with the requirements of American constitutionalism. While some critics accuse judges of being too influenced by politics and ideology, Powell's perspective highlights the role of individual conscience in constitutional interpretation.

In conclusion, the judiciary acts as a guardian of the constitutional conscience by interpreting and enforcing the Constitution through independent decision-making. The judiciary's relative weakness and independence, as highlighted by Hamilton, provide a check on the political rights of the Constitution. Additionally, the emphasis on individual conscience and constitutional virtues, as proposed by Powell, further strengthens the judiciary's role in preserving the constitutional conscience.

The independence of the judiciary

In the context of India, the Constitution is revered as the "conscience-keeper" of the nation's democracy. This notion underscores the importance of upholding the basic structure and principles of the Constitution, including liberty, equality, and fraternity, to ensure social, economic, and political justice. The independence of the judiciary plays a pivotal role in safeguarding these democratic ideals.

Judges, as the guardians of judicial independence, enjoy guaranteed tenure and security of office. Their term of office, independence, remuneration, conditions of service, pensions, and retirement age are secured by law. This security shields them from external pressures and influences, fostering an environment where they can adjudicate without fear or favour.

Additionally, the principle of judicial independence extends beyond the individual judge to the institutional level. The judiciary holds exclusive authority over issues of a judicial nature and has the prerogative to determine its competence in handling specific cases. Internal matters, such as the assignment of cases to judges within a court, are also left to the judiciary's administrative discretion.

In conclusion, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of democratic governance. By safeguarding the judiciary's autonomy and impartiality, societies can uphold the rule of law, protect the rights of individuals, and maintain a system of checks and balances on other branches of government. The concept of the Constitution as a "conscience-keeper" underscores the importance of judicial independence in preserving the fundamental values and principles that underpin a democratic nation like India.

The importance of the Supreme Court

The term "Keeper of the King's Conscience" refers to the Lord Chancellor, who is the highest judicial officer in England. The role dates back to medieval times, when the Lord Chancellor was responsible for advising the king on matters of law and conscience.

In a similar vein, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, established by Article III of the Constitution, which states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in the constitutional system of government and has a significant impact on society at large.

Firstly, as the highest court in the land, it is the final arbiter of justice, providing a court of last resort for those seeking justice. This role is essential in ensuring that individuals' rights are protected and that they have access to justice.

Secondly, the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, which enables it to ensure that each branch of the government recognizes and respects its own limits. This power allows the Court to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, thereby protecting civil rights and liberties. For example, after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1869, the Supreme Court ruled that most provisions of the Bill of Rights were applicable to the states, not just the federal government.

Thirdly, the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in setting limits on democratic government. It ensures that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm or take undue advantage of minorities or violate the Constitution. For instance, in the landmark case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969), the Court held that students could not be punished for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War, upholding their right to free speech.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court is vital as it safeguards the rights and liberties of citizens, ensures the balance of power between different branches of government, and upholds the principles of the Constitution, acting as a keeper of the constitutional conscience.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism (Examples & Explanations Series)

$59.81 $76.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights (Examples & Explanations Series)

$76.95 $76.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$75.91 $345

The role of citizens in a democracy

In a democracy, citizens are granted the right to vote for their elected representatives in government positions. The U.S. Constitution includes amendments regarding citizenship and the political participation of citizens, such as granting citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" and forbidding states from denying any person "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Citizens in a democracy have several responsibilities and duties. They must be active and vigilant, recognizing that they have rights but also important responsibilities. Citizens must participate in the democratic process, which includes joining political parties, campaigning for their chosen candidates, and accepting election results. They are also free to run for office or serve as appointed public officials. Citizens can utilize a free press to speak out on issues, join unions and community groups, and participate in voluntary organizations. Additionally, in some democracies, citizens may be required to serve on juries or perform mandatory military or civilian national service. Respect for the law is a fundamental obligation in all democracies.

Citizens play a crucial role in holding their leaders accountable. They have the freedom to dissent and criticize the government and can organize and peacefully advocate for change. They must also be willing to invest time and effort into the democratic process, recognizing that the success or failure of the government is their responsibility.

In the context of the "keeper of the constitutional conscience," this phrase appears to refer to the role of the Constitution in guiding a country's conscience and ensuring the well-being of its citizens. For example, in India, the Constitution is seen as a conscience-keeper, allowing for amendments to meet changing circumstances while maintaining its basic structure and upholding values such as liberty, equality, and fraternity. Similarly, in medieval England, the Lord Chancellor, also known as the "Keeper of the King's Conscience," was responsible for advising the king on matters of law and ensuring that the monarch's decisions were just and fair.

The moral dimension of judicial decision-making

In his book *Constitutional Conscience: The Moral Dimension of Judicial Decision*, H. Jefferson Powell discusses the role of individual conscience in constitutional decision-making. He argues that controversial decisions often have multiple constitutionally defensible resolutions, and that in such cases, judges must act in good faith and exercise what he calls the "constitutional virtues". These virtues include candor, intellectual honesty, humility about the limits of constitutional adjudication, and the willingness to admit fallibility.

Powell's work emphasizes the importance of these qualities in maintaining the integrity of judicial review and the credibility of the courts. He suggests that judges should approach constitutional interpretation not through the lens of ideology but rather by valuing personal perspective. This perspective is in contrast to the views of many recent observers, who have accused American judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, of being overly influenced by politics and ideology.

The concept of a "constitutional conscience" is not new. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, wrote about the judiciary's role in preserving the political rights of the Constitution. He argued that the judiciary was the "'least dangerous' branch of government because it lacked the power to physically enforce laws without the Executive or Legislative branches. Hamilton also emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary, stating that "nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office".

Federalist No. 81, another foundational text of constitutional interpretation, addresses the distribution of powers among the judiciary. It discusses the potential dangers of judicial activism and the need for courts to work together to ensure fair and equal laws across the country. The paper also mentions how an ordinary citizen could sue their state, as seen in the landmark case of Chisholm v. Georgia, where Alexander Chisholm sued the state of Georgia for withholding payments owed to him.

In conclusion, the moral dimension of judicial decision-making is a critical aspect of any constitutional democracy. Powell's work highlights the importance of individual conscience and the need for judges to act with integrity, honesty, and humility. By upholding these moral virtues, judges can ensure that their decisions are fair, just, and in the best interests of the citizens they serve.

Frequently asked questions