Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Why the Supreme Court Is a Failed Protector of the People

The brilliant insight of our Founding Fathers was to have three branches of government that were kept in check through separation of powers. There was at least one thing they got very wrong, though. To all those people decrying activist judges, I would like to say the following: The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the people from an overbearing, authoritative government. The way in which the Fathers chose to do this is to draft a set of principles which neither the government nor individuals can violate, which they called the Constitution. But in paying so much deference to this 200-odd year old document, they miss out on the opportunity to be the most powerful force of justice. There are things the Fathers missed, such as the extent to which businesses determine what gets done in government...it just wouldn't have been possible without telephones or airplanes when they were drafting it. That's why I want to see one of our legislators propose a convention to discuss what the Constitution means in today's society and what the role of the courts is.

(This post might have something to do with the impending decision of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission)

No comments:

Post a Comment