Adam Kimball
Pol. 1110
Instr. Madigan
12/10/96
Judicial Review is the power given to Supreme
court justices in which a judge has the power to reason whether a law is
unconstitutional or not. Chief Justice John Marshall initiated the Supreme
Court's right to translate the Constitution in 1803 following the case of
Marbury Vs. Madison, in which he declared the Supreme Court as the sole
interpreters of Constitutional law. This is one of the sole purposes of the Supreme
Court of the United States. Many Historical thinkers would find some difficulty
in imagining a government set up to limit the
power of itself,but others would
argue that this form of government best works for the people, and not against them. The treatment of the Constitution by
the Supreme Court as a "living" document that is able to be
translated differently over time for the good of the people has as many
skeptics as it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translate
the Constitution who then, should the people chose to do such an important job.
If we were to look back at the ideas and
thoughts of some of the greatest political thinkers of our time, we would find
that individuals such as Plato, Niccolo Machiavelli, and John Locke, would
share extremely different views as to whether or not Judicial review, and the
Supreme Court as a whole, would be successful in their ideal government
situations.
One of the earliest political philosophers Plato, would find our
present day governmental setup of the Supreme Court to be the ideal group to
deal with the United States' situation. Plato felt that government should be
run by enlightened philosopher kings, that would rule for the good of the
people, and not themselves. We today see the Supreme Court as a collection of
the most "enlightened" thinkers of our day. They are chosen to make
moral decisions about laws made by others in our society, and decide whether or
not the laws we make are in the best interest of our nation as a whole. Plato
knew that within any political State their would be corruption, to stop the
corruption Plato felt that the philosopher kings would best rule because they
would not indulge themselves in a corrupt society. They only believed in the
truth, and justice that government is supposed to protect its people with.
Although Plato would not totally agree with the
Democratic structure of our government, I believe that he would chose for our
society, a state that is ruled by a similar group to that of our Supreme Court
because, the members of the Supreme Court are chosen because of their ability
to make sensible, moral decisions about issues that may contradict our
Constitution.
Niccolo Machiavelli on the other hand, would
find a great many problems with giving the Power to translate Constitutional
law to anyone other than the President of the United States. Machiavelli would
also totally disagree with the idea of having anyone make decisions about laws
because they are morally incorrect. Machiavelli felt that virtue and idealism
was one of the biggest enemies of the State. He felt that a government should
be run with the sole intention of forcing the people to be obedient, and for
the individual virtues of the people to be a non-factor in any political decisions
made by the ruler of the state. He would find that a group of individuals
elected to protect the virtue of citizens, and make sure that laws were morally
correct, would be a totally absurd action that would only cause chaos, and
mayhem because it is impossible to make a government that is completely
virtuous. Machiavelli found the most successful government to be one that ruled
on the basis of "realism" not "idealism". Realistically, no
government could ever successfully develop under an ideal that would allow a
group of otherwise powerless individuals to decide whether or not the laws that
exist in government are morally correct under the guidance of a Constitution
that may be considered to be "Idealistic" rather than
"realistic".
A more modern philosopher such as John Locke,
would find the Supreme Court and its power of Judicial Review to be one of the
most important characteristics of the United States' setup of Democracy. Locke
would truly enjoy how successful the beauties of the limiting powers of each
branch of our government. Locke would find that our policy of "Checks and
Balances" to be one of the greatest ways of keeping the government working
for the people. Locke believed in each individual's right to "self
Preservation". Meaning that we all equally have the right to uphold the
laws of nature. Locke believed that all people should be treated as equals, and
to not treat each other equally would interfere on an individual's right to
"self Preservation". Much like Locke, The Supreme Court exists to
interpret whether or not a law is going to interfere with our right to
"self preservation". Locke felt that for a government to be
successful in preserving the rights of the individual citizen, it must
concentrate on protecting the "Life and Liberty" of each citizen. The
Constitution of the United States is the ideal document in Locke's mind. And,
the Supreme Court's protection of the people of the United States, and its
Constitution is also a necessity in running a truly virtuous, and successful
government that concentrates on the rights of the individual, rather than the
people as a whole.
Many philosophers shared different beliefs
on how a government could be most successful. Some believed that a government
would be best run by the people. Others thought that one sole dictator or King
could best run a successful government. Either way, I don't believe that anyone
can contest the success of the United States' democratic setup, and its beliefs
in protecting the rights of the individual. It was the beliefs of our
forefathers to preserve the rights of man, and that "All men are created
equal". These beliefs have molded one of the most successful political
states in modern History.
No comments:
Post a Comment