Duncan/Southerland
The Duncan/Southerland ticket urges that the Judicial Branch of Government stick to a
restrained approach in judicial review that aligns with the Founding Fathers’ original
intent of the Constitution.
Judicial restraint urges judges to refrain from personal input regarding legal issues and rather points them to the Constitution for decision-making. Alexander Hamilton, in his Federalist No.78, states, “It proves incontestably that the Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.” However, I would wager that he would say something different if given the chance to see the power that the Judiciary possesses today. John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, inadvertently created judicial review by claiming that the writ of mandamus by
Marbury forced the judiciary to overstep its bounds under the Constitution. Judicial review is a means by which the judicial branch of government can keep the other branches in check by evaluating laws or acts and deeming them unconstitutional or not. With the rise of judicial activism, the lines between judicial review and judicial overreach have become blurred.
The Judicial Branch of Government should stick to the Founders’ intent of the Constitution because it reduces subjective judging and upholds the Constitution, which will prevent the judicial branch from overstepping its bounds. Judicial activism leads to an unstable system with justices inserting different opinions rather than sticking to a system that decides the outcome, as Judicial Restraint does with the Constitution.
The judicial branch of government should stick to judicial restraint and the founders’ intent of the Constitution to reduce subjective judging. The Constitution is the “Supreme law of the land” and is the highest standing authority in the American government. However, the Constitution leaves little description regarding how the judicial branch should proceed. Since the purpose of the judiciary is to test actions and laws against the Constitution, it should hold to the Founders’ view, as they wrote the Constitution and began the framework for our nation.
If the Constitution can be viewed subjectively, then it holds no value since everything is up to a justice’s “perception” of what they believe. By holding to the founders’ intent, it keeps the judiciary grounded. One reason America established government is expressed by James Madison in Federalist Papers No. 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” This is why the Duncan/Southerland ticket holds fast to judicial restraint as it views the Constitution as the highest authority, having a check and balance ensuring that man’s fallen opinion isn’t the deciding factor.
Additionally, holding fast to the Founders’ intent of the Constitution upholds the Constitution and doesn’t diminish its power. If everything can be viewed subjectively through judicial activism, then the power of the Constitution is diminished because the Constitution becomes outdated. If justice is defined as giving everyone what is their due, we need an authority demanding what justice is; the ability to allow multiple opinions of justice distorts the view and definition to a biased imbalance.
With judicial activism, the Supreme Court can strike down laws or actions that they do not personally agree with, thereby diminishing the Constitution. Judicial restraint allows justices to stick to the Founders’ intent, which prevents their own interpretations from creeping in. Biblically, we are to keep justice as displayed in Deuteronomy 1:16-17 by upholding righteousness, protecting the vulnerable, and applying the law impartially. Judicial activism blurs the line of applying the law fairly.
In recent years, two of the most common ways judicial activism has been used are in legalizing same-sex marriage (Obergefell V. Hodges, June 26, 2015) and abortion (Roe V Wade, January 22, 1997).