Qhat do the latest decisions of the United States Supreme Court tell us? In the space of a few days, the highest legal body in the country, whose decisions are final, has just upset the political debate by taking positions, which are certainly predictable, but which are so many shock waves for society. American. A few days after an abominable massacre in a Texas school [à Uvalde, le 24 mai]the Court reinforces the right to bear arms (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. vs Bruen) by overriding a New York State regulation; it also overturns case law dating back to 1973 by ending federal protection of the right to abortion (Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization).
Finally, the Court has just prohibited the federal agency Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce carbon emissions (West Virginia judgment vs EPA), risking placing the United States at odds with the rest of the international community. Beyond the evidence of radicalization and a very real risk of misalignment with public opinion, it is undoubtedly the contrast between the current situation and the will of the Founding Fathers that is obvious.
Limited powers
The drafters of the Constitution in 1787 had the objective of perpetuating the republican nature of their young nation while introducing devices which framed popular excesses: the much maligned Electoral College finds its origin here, just like the presidency, the Senate or even the federalism, each one being supposed to act as so many moderating filters. In this architecture of the balance of powers (“ checks and balances »), the Supreme Court had a specific role: to protect constitutional rights by setting aside laws that were explicitly contrary to the founding text. The American republic rested on both popular sovereignty and the guarantee of the Constitution: one could not exist without the other.
But the framers of the Constitution created a Supreme Court with limited powers. In the anti-monarchist context of the time, this Court already looked too much like an aristocracy. Article 3 outlines a Court set back and with narrow powers. In his text explanation of number 78 of the Federalist [en 1788]the politician and jurist Alexander Hamilton, one of the most committed supporters of the new Constitution, underlined the weakness of this Supreme Court which, according to him, had neither force nor will, but a simple capacity for judgment, which placed it in a situation of complete dependence on Congress, and especially on the Presidency, for the execution of its decisions.
You have 59.53% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.
Qhat do the latest decisions of the United States Supreme Court tell us? In the space of a few days, the highest legal body in the country, whose decisions are final, has just upset the political debate by taking positions, which are certainly predictable, but which are so many shock waves for society. American. A few days after an abominable massacre in a Texas school [à Uvalde, le 24 mai]the Court reinforces the right to bear arms (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. vs Bruen) by overriding a New York State regulation; it also overturns case law dating back to 1973 by ending federal protection of the right to abortion (Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization).
Finally, the Court has just prohibited the federal agency Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce carbon emissions (West Virginia judgment vs EPA), risking placing the United States at odds with the rest of the international community. Beyond the evidence of radicalization and a very real risk of misalignment with public opinion, it is undoubtedly the contrast between the current situation and the will of the Founding Fathers that is obvious.
Limited powers
The drafters of the Constitution in 1787 had the objective of perpetuating the republican nature of their young nation while introducing devices which framed popular excesses: the much maligned Electoral College finds its origin here, just like the presidency, the Senate or even the federalism, each one being supposed to act as so many moderating filters. In this architecture of the balance of powers (“ checks and balances »), the Supreme Court had a specific role: to protect constitutional rights by setting aside laws that were explicitly contrary to the founding text. The American republic rested on both popular sovereignty and the guarantee of the Constitution: one could not exist without the other.
But the framers of the Constitution created a Supreme Court with limited powers. In the anti-monarchist context of the time, this Court already looked too much like an aristocracy. Article 3 outlines a Court set back and with narrow powers. In his text explanation of number 78 of the Federalist [en 1788]the politician and jurist Alexander Hamilton, one of the most committed supporters of the new Constitution, underlined the weakness of this Supreme Court which, according to him, had neither force nor will, but a simple capacity for judgment, which placed it in a situation of complete dependence on Congress, and especially on the Presidency, for the execution of its decisions.
You have 59.53% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.