Difference between revisions of "Constitutional supremacy"
(Fundamental principle) |
(Marshall, Marbury, Federalist 78, Constitutional supremacy over the judiciary) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
<blockquote>The fate of the Constitution will not then depend on judicial decisions. But, should no appeal be made to force, the States can put an end to the government by refusing to act. They have only not to elect Senators, and it expires without a struggle.<br /><br />It is very true that, whenever hostility to the existing system shall become universal, it will be also irresistible. The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.</blockquote> | <blockquote>The fate of the Constitution will not then depend on judicial decisions. But, should no appeal be made to force, the States can put an end to the government by refusing to act. They have only not to elect Senators, and it expires without a struggle.<br /><br />It is very true that, whenever hostility to the existing system shall become universal, it will be also irresistible. The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.</blockquote> | ||
| − | Marshall correctly observes that popular sovereignty is the most fundamental of all principles, and that constitutional supremacy is a direct derivative of that sovereignty.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=2Ly79RhdbgUC&pg=PA235 Human Rights, Constitutional Law and the Development of the English Legal System: Selected Essays]</ref> | + | Marshall correctly observes that popular sovereignty is the most fundamental of all principles, and that constitutional supremacy is a direct derivative of that sovereignty.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=2Ly79RhdbgUC&pg=PA235 Human Rights, Constitutional Law and the Development of the English Legal System: Selected Essays]</ref> Marshall frequently expounded this viewpoint, including in his most well known ruling, [[Marbury v. Madison]]. According to Michael Stokes Paulsen, professor of law, the logic of ''Marbury''' implies "'not, as it is so widely assumed today, judicial supremacy, but constitutional supremacy - the supremacy of the document itself over misapplications of its dictates by any and all subordinate agencies created by it'". Paulsen notes that Marshall's wording appears to be paraphrasing from [[Federalist No. 78]], where [[Alexander Hamilton]] also wrote of the supremacy of the Constitution over all branches of government, including the judiciary.<ref>[http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/03/08/the-myth-of-marbury-v-madison/ The Myth of Marbury v Madison]</ref> |
==Presidential Oath== | ==Presidential Oath== | ||
Revision as of 02:43, May 23, 2017
Constitutional supremacy is the belief that the United States Constitution is superior to all three branches of government[1] - in particular, that the Constitution is not what judges prefer it to be.[2]
The two primary tools of constitutional interpretation are the "plain meaning" rule and the "intention of the framers" rule.[2]
Constitutional supremacy is the opposite of Judicial supremacy, as judicial supremacists believe judges can remake the constitution any way they see fit.
Fundamental principle
John Marshall, who expounded a belief in the supremacy of the Constitution, wrote in Cohens v. Virginia:
The fate of the Constitution will not then depend on judicial decisions. But, should no appeal be made to force, the States can put an end to the government by refusing to act. They have only not to elect Senators, and it expires without a struggle.
It is very true that, whenever hostility to the existing system shall become universal, it will be also irresistible. The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.
Marshall correctly observes that popular sovereignty is the most fundamental of all principles, and that constitutional supremacy is a direct derivative of that sovereignty.[3] Marshall frequently expounded this viewpoint, including in his most well known ruling, Marbury v. Madison. According to Michael Stokes Paulsen, professor of law, the logic of Marbury' implies "'not, as it is so widely assumed today, judicial supremacy, but constitutional supremacy - the supremacy of the document itself over misapplications of its dictates by any and all subordinate agencies created by it'". Paulsen notes that Marshall's wording appears to be paraphrasing from Federalist No. 78, where Alexander Hamilton also wrote of the supremacy of the Constitution over all branches of government, including the judiciary.[4]
Presidential Oath
One example of constitutional supremacy is the presidential Oath of Office, found in Article II, Section One, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution.[5] The oath reads:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
See also
References
- ↑ The Constitution: An Introduction, The Constitution is supreme. It is the written Constitution that prevails over every other source of authority in the United States., p. 26
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Constitutional Interpretation
- ↑ Human Rights, Constitutional Law and the Development of the English Legal System: Selected Essays
- ↑ The Myth of Marbury v Madison
- ↑ America's Constitution: A Biography