Judicial Role and Constitutional Meaning

The judiciary plays a crucial role in defining what the law is, as famously articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall. While this often suggests a responsibility to interpret the Constitution, the tasks of explaining the law and deciphering constitutional meaning are distinct. The law addresses current cases and applies past decisions. Constitutional meaning, however, involves the broader structure of our political community.

Court decisions contribute significantly to our understanding of the Constitution. Yet, the public also plays a role in this process. It’s only in recent decades that we have increasingly blurred the lines between legal decisions and the creation of constitutional meaning. Legal historians Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan argue this has led to judicial supremacy, where the Constitution’s meaning is largely defined by the court’s decisions.

Historically, the American public, through Congress, has influenced constitutional interpretation, often challenging the court’s decisions. A historic instance is the opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857. The Republican Party actively opposed this decision, aiming to overturn it by legislative and constitutional means. As Bowie and Renan note, Republicans critiqued a court “inflated with supremacy,” underscoring Congress’s duty to counteract decisions seen as undermining public rights and liberties.

Constitutional meaning also arises from sources outside legislative and electoral systems. The Constitution’s ratification didn’t occur through the Confederation Congress or state legislatures. State conventions, inclusive of a wide public segment of the era, played a role. These conventions were intended to represent the people as a sovereign body.