The Supremacy of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court remains an essential component within the American government in that it precludes the centralization of power within any given branch or the courts. Yet, the Judicial Branch of the federal government has become a force of contention in recent decades due to its historically amorphous form; and the imminent encroachment on its authority, independent of the civic body. But their unrivaled power of the Supreme Court Justices remain necessary, as does their individual personal accountability whilst in office. The Justice’s personal decisions on specific issues indicate their efficacy and willingness to commit to impartiality; as a violation of either criterion will produce an eligibility for Judicial impeachment, of which must occur by the House of Representatives and the Senate.

According to the United States Courts official website, “[a]s of September 2017, only 15 federal judges have been impeached, and only eight have been convicted. Three others resigned before completion of impeachment proceedings, (USCourts). It expounds, citing that “[i]f the Judicial Conference finds possible grounds for impeachment, it submits a report to the House of Representatives. Only Congress has the authority to remove an Article III judge. This is done through a vote of impeachment by the House and a trial and conviction by the Senate,” (USCourts). Black’s Law Dictionary defines the Supreme Court of the United States as “[t]he court of last resort in the federal system, whose members are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate,” (Garner, B., p. 1742). Bryan Garner expounds “[t]he Court was established in 1789 by Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which vests the Court with the “judicial power of the United States,” (Garner, B., p. 1742).

Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 82 that “The plan of the convention, in the first place, authorizes the national legislature ‘to constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court. It declares in the next place, that the JUDICIAL POWER of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as congress shall ordain and establish;’ and it then proceeds to enumerate the cases, to which this judicial power shall extend. It afterwards divides the jurisdiction of the supreme court into original and appellate, but gives no definition of that of the subordinate courts,” (Hamilton, A., p. 429).

Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1788 that “the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them;” depicted in the Federalist No. 78, (Hamilton, A., p. 402). It would be one year later, in 1789, that the concept of Judicial Review would take effect; inverting Hamilton’s belief on the passivity of the Judicial Branch. Hamilton added on the tenure of Justices and Federal Judges “[i]f then the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges, which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty,” (Hamilton, A., p. 405).

Historicity of the Judiciary

Originally, natural law was the basis of government; “[f]or the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, (John 1:17; NIV). As the Apostle Paul scribed, “[l]et everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God,” (Romans 13:1; NIV).

The Old Testament set a precedent for subsidiarity. Black’s Law defines the word subsidiarity as “[t]he principle that a central authority’s function should be subsidiary, performing only tasks that ncannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level; the doctrine that the power to make chiefly local decisions should vest with the local authorities,” (Garner, B., p. 1728). Similarly, U.S. Courts follow the 18^th Century doctrine of Stare Decisis, a latin term translated to “to stand by things decided,” (Garner, B., p. 1696). Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term as “[t]he doctrine of precedent, under which a court must follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise in litigation, (Garner, B., p. 1696).

In the Old Testament’s book of Exodus, Moses scribes of his father in law Jethro that “[i]t came about the next day that Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood about Moses from the morning until the evening. Now when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, ‘What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge and all the people stand about you from morning until evening?’ Moses said to his father-in-law, ‘Because the people come to me to inquire of God. When they have a dispute, it comes to me, and I judge between a man and his neighbor and make known the statutes of God and His laws,’” (Exodus 18:13-16; NASB).

Yet Jethro bore a solution unto Moses in first declaring his wrongdoing; as “Moses’ father-in-law said to him, ‘The thing that you are doing is not good. You will surely wear out, both yourself and these people who are with you, for the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. Now listen to me: I will give you counsel, and God be with you. You be the people’s representative before God, and you bring the disputes to God, then teach them the statutes and the laws, and make known to them the way in which they are to walk and the work they are to do. Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens,’” (Exodus 18:17-21; NASB). Thus, Jethro’s proposition set forth the basis for both the doctrine of Subsidiarity and Stare Decisis.

In Paul’s epistle to Timothy, he scribes “[n]ow we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted,” (1 Timothy 1:8-11; ESV). Paul adds a warning directly applicable to contemporary Supreme Court Justices “[s]in took advantage of those commands and deceived me; it used the commands to kill me. But still, the law itself is holy, and its commands are holy and right and good. But how can that be? Did the law, which is good, cause my death? Of course not! Sin used what was good to bring about my condemnation to death. So we can see how terrible sin really is. It uses God’s good commands for its own evil purposes,” (Romans 7:11-13; NLT).

As John scribes, “[e]veryone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness,” (1 John 3:4; NIV). John adds that “[d]o not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other, (1 John 3:13-14; NIV). No matter the views of the individual, there exists objective truth that presupposes their existence. The ruling of worldly authorities cannot abdicate the supremacy of God. As it is written, “[n]ow accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions,” (Romans 14:1; NASB). By ratifying laws to accommodate the ones weak in their faith, the Court denounces the existence of natural laws; placing them into the same category as artificial laws ratified to appease temporal culture.

As Otis Stephens, Jr. notes, “[t]he Supreme Court has evolved considerably over two centuries. It began as a vaguely conceived tribunal, with no cases to decide, and no permanent home. Over the years, the Court’s caseload increased, as did its prominence in national affairs, (Stephens, Jr., O., p. 81). Stephens add that “[t]he Court assumed increasing power and managed to hold its own against the legislative and executive branches of government. Eventually, the Court found a home in the Capitol, although its chambers were less than spectacular. In 1935 the Court moved into its own building,” (Stephens, Jr., O., p. 81). But America bears a shield of protection against despotic Judiciary, through various Articles within the Constitution; alongside the supremacy of the document. This combination assists in the distribution of power, precluding the establishment of another Leviathan, directly experienced by the Founders and their ancestors. Throughout recorded history there has not been an national government that was both powerful and powerless, whilst adaptable for the demands of culture; built on the authority of natural law and God’s objective truth.

Writ of Mandamus

The Supreme Court possesses the power to issue writs of mandamus; a subsidiary action to preclude conflict in lower courts, and delegate cases as deemed necessary. Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute (LII) writes that “[t]he All Writs Act (28 U.S. Code § 1651) gave the ‘Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress’ the authority to issue writs of mandamus ‘in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law,’” (LII). Black’s Law notes the word Mandamus is Latin for “we command,” (Garner, B., p. 1150). Bryan Garner defines the term Writs of Mandamus as, “[a] writ issued by a court to compel performance of a particular act by a lower court or governmental officer or body, usu. to correct a prior action or failure to act. Also termed writ of madamus; mandate; order,” (Garner, B., p. 1150). Cornell adds further that “[i]n New York, a writ of mandamus may be issued for when an administrative agency, public body, or officer fails to perform a duty enjoined upon them by New York Civil Practice Laws & Rules, Section 7803,” (LII). Bryan Garner cites James L. High in his work, A Treatise on Extraordinary Legal Remedies §2, at 5–6 (1884) that, “[t]he writ of mandamus is of very ancient origin, so ancient indeed that its early history is involved in obscurity, and has been the case of much curious research and of many conflicting opinions,” (Garner, B., p. 1150).

Article III

Article III of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the powers of the Judiciary. This Article is important because it provides the extent that the Judicial Branch can operate; clearly mapping its jurisdiction, its strengths, and weaknesses. While the Judicial Branch may be considered the most powerful Branch of government, it also falls subject to Congress; and each Justice must be carefully considered in three stages; (1) the President, (2) the House of Representatives, and (3) the Senate.

Section 1 of Article III states the “[t]he Judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” On Judicial tenure, the Framer’s expound that “Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, as stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

Section 2 of Article III depicts the jurisdiction of power within the Judiciary, and its Constitutional limitations. The Founding Fathers noted that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;” with many instances of legal conflict, including “Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

Section 2 adds that, “[i]n all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” But, note the Founders, “[i]n all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact.”

There are limitations to the authority of the Judiciary; noted by the Framers are various “Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Further, the Framers did not intend for the Supreme Court to be the judge of cases, rather than the interpreter of the previous Court’s ruling. Courts are to be decided by a Jury, as depicted in this section, reading that “[t]he Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

Article IV

Article IV Section 1 notes that “[f]ull Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. Section 4 of Article IV “guarantees” that “every State in this Union” be granted the means conducive to “a Republican Form of Government.”

Article VI

What gives the previous Articles within the U.S. Constitution concerning the Judiciary its authority is Article IV’s Supremacy Clause. This enumerates the weight of authority that the Constitution holds over every other legislative act; thus simultaneously disclosing the limitations of the Supreme Court. The Supremacy Clause reads, “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Writ of Certiorari

The Supreme Court is not forced to accept all cases. First, the party seeking to appeal must file a Writ of Certiorari, (LII). Black’s Law notes the term Certiorari is Latin for “to be more fully informed,” (Garner, B., p. 284). Bryan Garner notes that “[t]he write evolved from one of the prerogative writs of the English Court of King’s Bench, and in the United States it became a general appellate remedy, (Garner, B., p. 284). Garner adds further that, “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court uses certiorari to review most of the cases that it decides to hear . . . Also termed writ of certiorari, (Garner, B., p. 284). Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute (LII) writes that “a party seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court from a lower court decision must file a writ of certiorari;” adding that “[i]n the Supreme Court, if four Justices agree to review the case, then the Court will hear the case. This is referred to as ‘granting certiorari,’ often abbreviated as ‘cert.’ If four Justices do not agree to review the case, the Court will not hear the case. This is defined as denying certiorari,” (LII).

Judicial Review

Critics oppose the Supreme Court’s ability to act as legislators; as decided in Marbury v. Madison. This case, argued Feb 11^th, 1803, was decided thirteen days later, whereby the Supreme Court granted itself the power to interpret laws based on its decision. Conversely, while the power of Judicial Review remains autonomous, it also remains binding. This prevents Congress and the Executive Branch from Judicial Review also prevents lower-level courts from ruling against previously determined rulings when the circumstances of modern cases legally align. This action of hierarchy works to preclude overpopulation of the Court, especially appeals from lower-level courts. As Otis Stephens, Jr. denotes, “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court is the leading actor on the stage of American constitutional lawmaking,” (Stephens, Jr., O., p. 32).

But the Supreme Court has “articulated several doctrines that limit access to Judicial Review. Chief among them are standing, ripeness, mootness, exhaustion of remedies, abstention, and the political questions doctrine, (Stephens, Jr., O., p. 46).

Mootness

The Supreme Court has recognized the impact of mootness, in that “[a] case is moot if the issues that gave rise to it have been resolved or have otherwise disappeared,” (Stephens, O., p. 43). Stephens expounds that “[a]n excellent example of a constitutional case being dismissed for mootness is School District 241 v. Harris (1995). In 1991, a group of students and parents, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union [(ACLU)], filed suit to challenge two prayers and a hymn that were part of a graduation ceremony at an Idaho public high school,” (Stephens, Jr., O., p. 43). The federal district court in Idaho rejected the challenge, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the practice unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court remanded the case, instructing the Court of Appeals to dismiss it as moot because the students who filed the suit had graduated,” (Stephens, Jr., O., p. 44). Stephens concludes that “[t]his illustrates how the Court can use the mootness doctrine to avoid consideration of a controversial constitutional question. If the federal courts strictly adhered to the mootness rule, certain inherently time-bound questions would never be addressed,” (Stephens, Jr., O., p. 44).

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term Mootness Doctrine as “[t]he principle that American courts will not decide moot cases — that is, cases in which there is no longer any actual controversy,” (Garner, B., p. 1208).

Ripeness Doctrine

The Ripeness Doctrine is to “prevent the courts from getting prematurely involved in issues that may ultimately be resolved through other means. Like the doctrines of standing and mootness, the ripeness doctrine is not merely a means of conserving judicial power, but can be used flexibly as part of the judicial agenda-setting process,” (Stephens, Jr., O., p. 44).

Stephens notes that “[a] classic example of the use of the ripeness doctrine to avoid an important constitutional issue occurred in Poe v. Ullman (1961). In this case, the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to a nineteenth-century Connecticut law that prohibited practicing birth control through artificial means. The Court said that since the law had not yet been enforced against the plaintiffs, the case was not ripe for judicial review,” (Stephens, Jr., O., p. 44). Stephens concludes that “[e]ventually, the Court reviewed and struck down the Connecticut statute, but only after an individual was convicted and fined for violating the law,” (Stephens, Jr., O., p. 44).

Ballentine’s Dictionary of Law notes the meaning of the term Ripeness Doctrine as “[t]he doctrine that an administrative agency or a trial court will not hear or determine a case, and an appellate court will not entertain an appeal, unless an actual case or controversy exists,” (Handler, J., p. 485).

Exhaustion of Remedies

Otis Stephens, Jr. defines the Exhaustion of Remedies as “[a] close cousin of the ripeness doctrine is the exhaustion of remedies requirement. For a case to be ripe for judicial consideration, the parties must first have exhausted all nonjudicial remedies. This doctrine applies primarily to cases that involve decisions by administrative or regulatory agencies,” Stephens, Jr,. O., p. 44). This occurred in “Natural Gas Pipeline Company v. Slattery(1937), the Supreme Court said that the exhaustion requirement had “especial force” when the case involved a state, as distinct from a federal agency,” (Stephens, Jr., O., pp. 44, 45).

Bouvier Law Dictionary defines the term Exhaustion of Remedies as “a doctrine of review and appeal that requires that all preliminary opportunities for relief be attempted with no success before the current petition for review is filed,” (Sheppard, S., p. 1018). Steven Sheppard adds that “[u]nder the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, however, a party must first pursue all administrative remedies provided for by the state before turning to a review in the courts. Employers Mutual Companies v. Skilling, 644 N.E.2d 1163,1165-1166 (Ill. 1994) (Heiple, J.), (Sheppard, S., p. 1018).

The Doctrine of Abstention

Stephens notes that “[u]nder the doctrine of abstention, federal judges normally abstain from issuing injunctions to prevent persons from being prosecuted under unconstitutional state statutes. For example, in Younger v. Harris (1971), the Supreme Court said it was improper fora federal court to enjoin a state prosecutor from trying a man under a state law virtually identical to one that had recently been declared unconstitutional,” (Stephens, Jr., O., p. 45). Bouvier Law Dictionary notes of the Abstention Doctrine that, “Federal courts should not hear cases better heard in the state courts. The doctrine of Abstention reflects the general idea of deference to state courts in certain matters and it is manifest in a series of specific circumstances under which the federal court’s obligation to resolve a controversy brought in a court of proper jurisdiction may be avoided in the interest of the federal recognition of the powers of the states, (Sheppard, S., p. 28). In the given example, Younger v. Harris (1971), the Court produced a more specific measure—known as Younger Abstention. Bouvier Law expounds on the term Younger Abstention, writing that “Federal courts will not enjoin a good-faith state criminal trial because a conviction might be unconstitutional, (Sheppard, S., p. 29). Stephen Sheppard notes further that “[t]he Younger principles of abstention apply both to claims based on constitutional challenges, as well as to those based on federal preemption challenges. FreeEats.com, Inc. v. Indiana, 502 F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2007) (Manion, J.), (Sheppard, S., p. 30).

Supreme Court Cases

The Supreme Court’s authority has positioned itself to both (1) attain expansive powers, and (2) become a force of unrivaled detriment.

Expansive Powers

Supreme Court cases the expanded Judiciary Power include Marbury v. Madison (1803); McCulloch v. Maryland (1819); Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984); and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824).

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court enacted the means to Judicial Review. This allows the Supreme Court to set precedent through their own interpretation of the Constitution and laws. In essence the Supreme Court ruled to expand its own power and authority for posterity.

- McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court ruled that Congress had the authority to establish a bank, and that states could not impose tax on “instruments of the national government,” (Oyez).

- Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) the Court sought to answer the question “[if] the Commerce Clause [gave] Congress authority over interstate navigation,” (Oyez). The Supreme Court ruled that the “national government had exclusive power over interstate commerce, negating state laws interfering with the exercise of that power,” (Oyez). Thus, instance of concurrent powers with conflicts of interests; the National government’s power wins.

Detriment

Supreme Court cases that displayed the detriment of Judiciary Power include Plessy v. Ferguson (1896); Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857); Roe v. Wade (1973); and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). According to Liberty University Professor Judge Scott Naus, “[g]enerally, it takes the Supreme Court sixty years to change its mind,” (LibertyUniversity). This fact is seen in the Supreme Court’s reversal of their own rulings based on newer cases that offer greater authoritative precedent. Thus, the lower level courts are required to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court, no matter what changes may occur.

- Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

The Supreme Court failed in its 1896 ruling that upheld state-imposed segregation; holding that “[i]n short, segregation did not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination,” (Oyez). Plessy v. Ferguson was overruled by the Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling of Brown v. Board of Education, (LII).

- Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

According to the Missouri State Archives, the Supreme Court’s “1857 decision that stunned the nation, [in that] the United States Supreme Court upheld slavery in United States territories, denied the legality of black citizenship in America, and declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional,” (SOS). Dred Scott v. Sanford’s ruling was overturned in 1868 with the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment.

- Roe v. Wade (1973)

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court erroneously ruled in favor of a defendant who had lied about being raped in an effort to abort her unborn child. As a result the Supreme Court ruled to federally regulate abortion, rather than leave it for the states to decide. This ruling was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson in 2022.

- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)

In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), the Supreme Court ruled that if Congress does not have a specific interpretation for the term enumerated within the legislation (in this case, The Clean Air Act) then agencies are free to interpret the rules as they see fit, provided they use “reasonable interpretation.” Notably, “Justices Thurgood Marshall, William H. Rehnquist, and Sandra Day O’Connor did not participate,” (Oyez). This erroneous authority persisted for decades, allowing the autonomy of bureaucratic entities to interpret regulations as they saw fit. This action, known as Chevron Deference resulted in the Supreme Court extending the power of Judicial Review to the bureaucracy. This untethered agencies and their subagency counterparts from official regulation; producing despotic action within the permanent bureaucracy. During the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic, the federal bureaucracies exploited this Judicial ruling; resulting in mass democide across the nation. As a result, the Supreme Court overturned this decision with Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in 2024.

- Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

The government does not grant natural rights. Marriage is a natural right. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court deposed marriage as a natural right, ruling instead that it was to be defined by the context of culture; and arbitrated by nine individual—rather than God. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled against the traditional image of marriage; against the concept of marriage held throughout recorded history, and against the Biblical image of marriage depicted by God. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment required a state to license the marriage between two people of the same sex; and that to be universally valid among all 50 states. This slippery slope depicts an image that the government grants inherent natural rights; a complete inversion to the reality we exist within. Despite one’s opinion or interpretation on the matter, there exists only one form of objective eternal truth; that remains un-waivered throughout history.

Impeachment Trial Clause

Otis Stephens, Jr. notes that “[i]n Colegrove v. Green (1946), Justice Felix Frankfurter warned of the dangers of entering the ‘political thicket’ of reapportionment. But in Baker v. Carr (1962), the Supreme Court, in a lengthy opinion by Justice William Brennan, held that legislative malapportionment (that is, gross disparities in population among districts) was a justiciable question in federal court. This decision signaled a veritable revolution, in which federal courts directed the reapportionment of legislative districts at all levels of government, from the U.S. House of Representatives to local schoolboards, on the basis of ‘one person, one vote.’ In Nixon v. United States (1993) the Justices voted 9 to 0 to dismiss a suit challenging the Senate’s current method for holding impeachment trials,” (Stephens, Jr., O., p. 46). Otis Stephens, Jr., notes that “[t]he Supreme Court found the Senate’s choice of the means for fulfilling its obligation under the Impeachment Trial Clause to be a nonjusticiable political question. By making use of the political questions doctrine the Supreme Court can be showing reverence to a coordinate branch of government or avoiding a potentially controversial decision that risks jeopardizing the Courts lofty status in the eyes of the public,” (Stephens, Jr., O., p. 46).

Justia notes on Nixon v. United States (1993), that the Supreme Court held “Nixon's claim that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial Clause is nonjusticiable. Pp. 228-238,” (Justia).

The Contemporary Judiciary

As Otis Stephens opines, one determinative factor in the “growth in the Court’s power and prestige can be attributed to the degree to which the American people and their elected representatives have accepted the political role that the Court has established for itself,” (Stephens, Jr., O., p. 81). It is the acquiesce to cultural interpretation that degrades the value of the Constitution and the traditions of the American nation. Alternatively, citizens ought to look to the original interpretation of the Founding Fathers and the original formation of Supreme Court, alongside its Foundational rulings, alongside the further enumeration of civic liberties unto the Constitution, vested in the U.S. Bill of Rights and proceeding Amendments to the Constitution.

Since the ratification of the Civil War Amendments, the Supreme Court has been looked to as the arbiter of interpretation, instituting the basis of legalism. In contemporary polity many citizens seek objective truth from the issuance of laws—seen as the sole protector of their liberties. Yet, the American legal system presupposes inherent natural law, and individual divine right within the Constitution. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI asserts the validity of these rulings, whilst Article III enumerates the powers held by the Judicial Branch.

Conclusion

In sum, the Judiciary is a necessary force of power to prevent tyranny; by the Executive Branch, Congress, and the courts. The Founders were granted provision by God, enabling the construction of a lasting force of protection; one that remains admired today. Although the Judiciary has grown in power immensely since its inception, it has responded to the conditions and limitations imposed upon it by the Founding Fathers. Further, it has acted as a barrier against Congress, and the recursion of consistent attacks upon the sovereignty of the citizenry by the Executive Branch. The life tenure given to the Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges acts as means of personal accountability, should any ruling deviate from Constitutionality. As Justices are tasked with making judgments on the rulings and actions of lower courts and not on the details of the individual cases themselves, there exists less potential for partiality.

Bibliography

Garner, B.A. (2021). Black's Law Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters.

Hamilton, A, et al. (2001, 2011). The Federalist: The Gideon Edition. Liberty Fund, Inc.

Handler, J. (1994). Ballentine's Law Dictionary: Legal Assistant Edition. Delmar Publishers: Albany, NY.

Justia. (Accessed on August 29^th, 2024). Nixon v. United States :: 506 U.S. 224 (1993). Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/.

LII. (Accessed on August 29^th, 2024). Certiorari. Wex. US Law. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari.

LII. (Accessed on August 29^th, 2024). Mandamus. Wex. US Law. LII. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mandamus.

LII. (Accessed on August 28^th, 2024). Plessy v. Ferguson. (1896). Wex. US Law. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plessy_v_ferguson_(1896).

Oyez. (Accessed on August 28^th, 2024). Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Retrieved August 28, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1005

Oyez. (Accessed on August 28^th, 2024). Dred Scott v. Sandford. Retrieved August 28, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393

Oyez. (Accessed on August 28^th, 2024). Gibbons v. Ogden. Retrieved August 28, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/22us1

Oyez. (Accessed on August 28^th, 2024). Marbury v. Madison. Retrieved August 28, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137

Oyez. (Accessed on August 28^th, 2024). McCulloch v. Maryland. Retrieved August 28, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/17us316

Oyez. (Accessed on August 28^th, 2024). Plessy v. Ferguson. Retrieved August 28, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/163us537

Oyez. (Accessed on August 28^th, 2024). Roe v. Wade. Retrieved August 28, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18

Sheppard, S.M. (2012). The Wolter Kluwer Bouvier Law Dictionary; Desk Edition Volume 1: A-L. Wolter Kluwer: New York, NY.

SOS. (Accessed on August 28^th, 2024). Missouri Digital Heritage: Dred Scott Case, 1846-1857. https://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/africanamerican/scott/scott.asp.

Stephens, Jr., O., et al. (2008, 2012, 2015). American Constitutional Law, Volume I: Sources of Power and Restraint: Sixth Edition. Cengage Publishing.