« Matsuri | Main | Fearlessly the idiot faced the crowd, smiling »

Sunday, February 05, 2017

Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges...

In light of the latest 3AM tweetstorm, I am reminded of the dangers to our Republic intimated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78:

The judiciary...has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.

But let's not have it stop there.  In answer to unpresidented questions, Alexis de Tocqueville noted in Democracy in America:

The Americans have retained these three distinguishing characteristics of the judicial power: an American judge can pronounce a decision only when litigation has arisen, he is conversant only with special cases, and he cannot act until the cause has been duly brought before the court. His position is therefore exactly the same as that of the magistrates of other nations, and yet he is invested with immense political power. How does this come about? If the sphere of his authority and his means of action are the same as those of other judges, whence does he derive a power which they do not possess? The cause of this difference lies in the simple fact that the Americans have acknowledged the right of judges to found their decisions on the Constitution rather than on the laws. In other words, they have permitted them not to apply such laws as may appear to them to be unconstitutional.

I am aware that a similar right has been sometimes claimed, but claimed in vain, by courts of justice in other countries; but in America it is recognized by all the authorities; and not a party, not so much as an individual, is found to contest it. This fact can be explained only by the principles of the American constitutions.

As Abraham Lincoln said a few score years later, unanimity is impossible, which is why we have a system of checks and balances including an independent Judiciary.  Lord Dampnut might've known that had he spent a little time reading American founding documents instead of obsessing over Arnold's television ratings.

ntodd

February 5, 2017 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment