| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
| | Justice Kennedy's reference to "the Constitution" is to the United States Constitution, which was written during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during the hot summer of 1787, completed in September, and sent to the 13 states (former colonies) for ratification by at least 9 of them. The "Federalist Papers" were written anonymously by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in order to persuade the people of the large state of New York to ratify (approve and adopt) the Constitution. We now know which person authored which Federalist Paper (each one was published separately in a New York newspaper as the debate progressed), and James Madison is indicated in the above quote as being the author of the 51st Federalist Paper. | | Justice Kennedy's reference to "the Constitution" is to the United States Constitution, which was written during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during the hot summer of 1787, completed in September, and sent to the 13 states (former colonies) for ratification by at least 9 of them. The "Federalist Papers" were written anonymously by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in order to persuade the people of the large state of New York to ratify (approve and adopt) the Constitution. We now know which person authored which Federalist Paper (each one was published separately in a New York newspaper as the debate progressed), and James Madison is indicated in the above quote as being the author of the 51st Federalist Paper. |
| | | | |
| − | The Federalist Papers are important today for their usefulness in interpreting what the Constitution meant at the time (the "original meaning" of the Constitution). Today "judicial activists" think the Constitution should be given a different meaning based on today's culture and values, while "textualists" and "originalists" interpret the Constitution to mean the same today as it did when it was written in 1787 and ratified by 1788. | + | The Federalist Papers are important today for their usefulness in interpreting what the Constitution meant at the time (the "original meaning" of the Constitution). Today "judicial activists" and "loose constructionists" think the Constitution should be given a different, expansive meaning based on today's culture, values and perceived needs, while "originalists", "textualists" and "strict constructionists" interpret the Constitution to mean the same today as it did when it was written in 1787 and ratified by 1788. |
| | + | |
| | + | == "separation of powers" == |
| | + | |
| | + | When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy refers to "separation of powers" in his quote above, he's referring to how the Constitution created three separate branches of government at the federal (national) level: legislature (Congress), executive (president and federal agencies), and the federal judiciary (U.S. Supreme Court; by federal laws Congress has also created the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals, the many U.S. district courts, and bankruptcy courts). |
| | + | |
| | + | Remember this: the U.S. Constitution requires strict separation between the duties and activities of these three branches of government. This is different from the parliamentary system of government common in Europe and around the world, where there is overlap between the legislative and executive branches. |
| | + | |
| | + | Justice Kennedy says that the separation of powers in the Constitution was not a new idea. Historians attribute it to the French philosopher Montesquieu. Bible scholars find its origin in a passage in Isaiah. |
| | + | |
| | + | == "checks and balances" == |
| | + | |
| | + | When Justice Kennedy refers to "checks and balances," he means how the three branches of the federal (national) government stand up to each other prevent each other from acquiring too much power. When one branch oversteps its authority, such as Congress passing an unconstitutional law, then the U.S. Supreme Court declares the law to be invalid. When the Supreme Court oversteps its authority, then the President refuses to execute (apply) the ruling. President Andrew Jackson, who governed almost like a king, is famous for declaring after a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Indians that President Jackson did not like, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" (John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for nearly 35 years in the early 1800s, who presided over a massive expansion in the power of the Court) President Jackson's point was that the Supreme Court has no enforcement power of its own, and a "check and balance" on its power is when the executive branch refuses to enforce its ruling. |
| | + | |
| | + | How could Congress "check and balance" the power of the U.S. Supreme Court (and all federal courts)? In many ways: |
| | + | |
| | + | *refuse to provide funding for the courts (Congress is what must approve all funding of the federal government) |
| | + | *impeach judges (as Congress unsuccessfully attempted in the case of Samuel Chase) |
| | + | *remove jurisdiction from the federal courts over certain issues (as Congress has done for disputes over reimbursement in Medicare, which is the government health insurance for people over 65 years old) |
| | + | *abolish entire lower courts (the Constitution requires only that the U.S. Supreme Court exist) |
| | + | |
| | + | The important point is this: each branch has the power to "check and balance" each other branch under the Constitution, and that prevents the federal government from grabbing too much power for itself. |
| | + | |
| | + | Keep in mind that Congress makes the laws, the courts interpret the laws, and the president (executive branch) applies the laws. Any one of the three can stop the other two from grabbing too much power. |
| | + | |
| | + | == "judicial review" == |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | == "federalism" == |
| | | | |
| | | | |