Carr/Hammett
Rock, Paper, Scissors, a game often used to settle minor disagreements, is a surprisingly accurate analogy for the triumvirate of power in the American government. The game is balanced, providing strong advantages for all. Likewise, we in the United States of America run our three branches with similar imagery of checks and balances. As James Madison once said, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty is this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” No branch can dominate when power is thus divided.
Originally, the Judicial branch’s power was lacking. This imbalance led to the establishment of Judicial Review, empowering the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the other branches’ actions. This power was granted through the historic case of Marbury v. Madison, bringing the balance of power between branches to a more steady equilibrium. The branches today remain at this state of equilibrium, each one able to restrain the other. However, a major question (this year's election issue) is still passionately debated: what is the exact jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch?
Two seemingly contradictory doctrines vie for ascendancy: judicial restraint and judicial activism. Judicial Restraint encourages limited power for the Courts, while Judicial Activism promotes the protection and expansion of individual rights under the Court’s actions. Judicial Restraint is needed, as advocated by the Perseverance party, but equally so is Judicial Activism as supported by the Compassion party. Why? Because freedom necessitates it.
Liberty lit the Framers’ zeal to forge a government by and for the people. Our government was created to protect the rights of individuals, with each branch specifically crafted for this. The Legislative branch is made up of directly elected individuals who make laws according to the desires of the people. The Executive branch acts on a wide scale by enforcing these laws and protecting our country. The Judicial branch is to interpret the law and steward justice for the people. Achieving justice fundamentally relies on the protection of Liberty. The Supreme Court should be exercising “activism” only to protect individual freedoms, as shown in cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Tinker v. Des Moines. Alexander Hamilton stated that the Judicial branch stands as a bulwark against legislative intrusion towards individual freedoms.
The Judicial branch should and can balance active protection of liberty with restraint from interference in general policy issues that should be handled by the other two branches. The Court’s jurisdiction remains interpreting constitutional law, not participating in policy-making. Rather than fixating on the “checks,” as many are tempted to, we understand the principle as a whole, equally valuing the “balances.” The application of this understands that general policy-making belongs to the other branches, while the Court gives opportunity for advocacy against government control. General policies often over-prioritize efficiency or stability, blind to the costs of the individual. Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial branch is the ‘least dangerous’ branch, and wields ‘neither force, nor will, but merely judgement.’ This succinctly illustrates the mindset that the Judicial branch ought act with caution, intervening only when Constitutional rights are at risk. Our government is a system of checks and balances, both vital to the pursuit of liberty.
Our vision blends restraint with flexibility to best protect freedoms, elevating the defence of liberty above doctrine. We have a vision of an America where men and women are free to live morally, an America where wisdom is sought, an America that truly has Liberty and Justice for all.