Legitimacy of the Supreme Court

Introduction

It is a sovereign nation's intrinsic right to bear a set of laws to which it subscribes if it considers itself a benefit of civilisation and democracy. A Constitution is a collection of laws that explains the alienable rights of its citizens, structures governments, and defines the functions of the various positions of authority within the structured government. It also establishes the limitations, scope, and exceptions within which particular functions may be used, and it lastly provides directions and procedures to be done to ensure the smooth and efficient operation of the state. The constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Courts in many democratic jurisdictions, and such interpretations have often in the past been subjects of hot debates seeking to determine their legality. This paper will illustrate the various attempts to question either the interpretation or the legitimacy of the court in exercising it defining the power of the Constitution in light of the sample questions addressed below.

Meaning of the fact that Supreme Court as the interpreter of the Constitution should be non-partisan. Primarily, the Supreme Court is the overall arbitrator of constitutional crisis or deadlocks. It is the very organ that besides all else should offer a given jurisdiction the objective, clearer and closest to the right interpretation of the constitution for the good of all. To achieve this goal the court is obliged to be non-prejudicial, non-partisan and non-biased, just as Brutus asserts that the common good is the objective end of civil government (Articles of Confederation 1). Politics are highly biased and very volatile in demanding and implementing their manifestos, unfortunately, in the quest for that, there is bound to be the contravention of specific laws or misconstruing of other constitutional meanings. Unfortunately, politics are influential and can dramatically spread falsehoods crafted from the written rules to the public that could lead to impasse or strife. Therefore if at all the Supreme Court that which is charged with the responsibility of correctly interpreting and correcting any possible falsehoods is biased then there is bound to be a miscarriage of the rule of law.

Impartiality of the Supreme Court

Secondly, it's an imperative on the Supreme Court to provide legal implications, limits, exceptions and legal mannerism as to how the law and its ramifications are applied. It has to offer for safe grounds against political capriciousness, or other subordinate laws from conflicting with another. As explained by Hamilton that no other law of the land supersedes the constitution either in interpretation or implication (Hamilton 1). Therefore For the objective interpretation of the Constitution to incur the exact proportion of legal involvement and derivative in meaning it ought to be impartial to any political interests. Impartiality as such accords the court supremacy in issuing the correct essence of the law.

Independence of the Supreme Court

Thirdly, the Supreme Court has to be independent, and free from any partisan influence or interest to maintain its credibility and its legitimacy in offering an authentic interpretation. The dangers of American citizens questioning the Supreme Court's legitimacy or neutrality or lobbying for the court to interpret the constitution in a certain way. In as much as the law upholds that the Supreme Court is the last arbitration of interpretive matters of the constitution, it still protects the rights of the citizenry to seek redress from the direct application of the same constitution should it in some aspect infringe on the rights of a particular person. However, the dangers that exist in this attempts is the possibility of voiding the capacity of the Supreme Court to act against the very constitution it protects (An Anti-Federalist Critique of the Constitution 1). Moreover by questioning the legality of the constitution upon which even the powers of the Supreme Court are derived from is a questioning of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court too.The illegitimacy on one part of the constitution envisages the illegality of the entire document.

Public Influence on Interpreting the Constitution

There are two sides of the coin should the citizenry lobby the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in a given way, the authority of a sovereign land is vested upon its people (The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments 1). They codify their rules and regulations and promulgate them as the Supreme Constitution on their land. It's the people's will that mandates the constitution, therefore should a more significant majority in America lobby a particular interpretation. Then the issue of a constitutional amendment is envisaged, to accommodate the spirit of the constitution as meant for the people, by the people (The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments 2). However, it would be prejudicial for the Supreme Court to interpret the law outside its limits even if the public mandates it to do such. Otherwise doing so would eventuate to a constitutional crisis.

Dred Scott decision and Abraham Lincoln's defense

The decision against the granting of freedom and citizenship rights to Dred Scott, a slave, lead to the supreme court to unanimously rule that all slaves and their offspring can never be citizens, free and ever have a right to vote. That meant that the entire US was to abide by the ruling across all states even to those under the exceptions of the Missouri Compromise (Articles of Confederation 2). The Republicans supported that the decision by the court was not legitimate and could not be applied across the board since it meant that all the states even those that propagated anti-slavery were to enforce the ruling. To that effect, Abraham Lincoln castigated them for contempt of the Supreme Court's decision, affirming that it was the role of such a court to issue rulings that were to be obliged to. He insisted that the citizens had a responsibility under the law to respect the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in its interpretive role even if the outcome was not popular (Lincoln 1).

However, the limits of Lincoln’s argument were based on the fact that the ruling of the court would have gone contrary to the will of the citizens to whom the constitution derives its authority. The verdict constituted that either all of the US citizenry was to either be Free or slaves since they were all a nation of immigrants (Lincoln 2). The strengths of his arguments impacted on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court on matters of interpretation of the constitution. The weakness of his argument meant that the Supreme Court in its interpretive role could overturn the will of the citizenry from whom it derives its authority. These arguments relate to the previously treated questions in affirming the impact of the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the constitution. That in its role the court has to weary of the fact that it has to reflect the will of the people from whom it gets its authority and at the same time be impartial and objective in its delivery of translative and interpretive duties.

Works Cited

An Anti-Federalist Critique of the Constitution, Centinel1 October 5, 1787.

Articles of Confederation Ratified March 1, 1781

Hamilton, Alexander. "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered." Federalist no 84 (1788).

Lincoln, Abraham. "Speech on the Dred Scott Decision." June 26 (1857): 1857.

The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments, Ratified December 6, 1865.