The Founding Fathers were wary of judicial tyranny, having seen British judges enforce the Crown's political will. This skepticism influenced their discussions during the Constitutional Convention, where some opposed the establishment of a federal judiciary. Ultimately, a federal court system was created to handle specific disputes.
• The Framers did not want courts to be the final authority on law or the Constitution; judicial review was not included in the Constitution.
• Judicial review emerged later from Chief Justice John Marshall's ruling in Marbury v. Madison (1803), leading to an empowered judiciary.
• The Rule of Law is rooted in moral order and reflects higher principles, not merely human legislation. It is fundamental to rights and is based on natural law.
• Government should protect inherent rights rather than define them. Legitimacy arises from adherence to objective moral truths.
• The Constitution's strength relies on its fixed nature; treating it as a living document dismantles the Rule of Law.
• When courts prioritize ideology over law, it leads to tyranny and erodes liberty, undermining the foundational principles of the American political order.
A society that abandons the Rule of Law for the Rule of Man risks losing its liberty and descending into governance that undermines moral and constitutional boundaries.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/judicial-tyranny-vs-the-rule-of-law
No comments:
Post a Comment