The US Supreme Court's Role in Constitutional Matters

As a legal body, the United States Supreme Court holds a unique position as compared to other courts in other nations- the role of interpreter. In this particular case, indeed the focus of this essay, is the role of the USSC as interpreter of the Constitution. Briefly defined, an interpreter in this capacity is required to ensure that the Constitution is being fairly and properly applied to legal cases, with the end goal being the preservation of fair and equal justice for every American who comes before the Supreme Court, seeking a ruling on a particular matter (Raskin, 2003). The complexity and dimensions of this interpretative role over the centuries can only be appreciated when viewed within the context of its origin, as well as examples of the actions that the USSC has taken in the fulfillment of this role.

The interpretive role of the US Supreme Court is not something that was arbitrarily arrived at due to a hunger for power on the part of the judicial branch of the US government; historically, this role was undertaken quite as a matter of necessity, starting with the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshall took the initiative to lead the Supreme Court toward interpreting, and ruling upon, the Constitutionality of laws that other legislatures ratified and decisions of lower courts (Raskin, 2003). In all likelihood, a responsibility of this gravity would not have been taken on by the Court unless it was absolutely essential to do so.

Another important facet of the interpretive function of the Supreme Court strikes right to the heart of the Constitution itself- the ruling on matters that affect personal freedoms and the concept of liberty itself; these freedoms can take on any variety of forms as guaranteed by the Constitution, such as the religious context of the recent case of Boerne v. Flores. Rather than cite endless case law to make a point, it is useful to look again at the essential issues at hand, which are undoubtedly the bedrock upon which the United States itself was founded- the freedom and liberty of the individual. Without the rights of common individuals being protected, such as in the oversight of the Court, the US system of government simply could not function to any measurable degree.

Permanence of decrees needs to be given some thought in reference to the Supreme Court's ability to interpret; the reality is that aside from a Constitutional amendment or Executive Order, the decisions of the Court are permanent and final, and as such, often set the pace for future rulings on similar subjects, as evidenced by the fact that within this essay itself, specific cases were mentioned when discussing key concepts.

In addition to the permanence factor of Court decisions, the literal function of interpretation must in itself be correctly understood, which is to say that the Court must always be aware that its role is to rule within the context of the intent of the Constitution, and not to attempt to circumvent the Constitution for whatever agenda. The bottom line is that the Constitution is to be followed, not rewritten, except in the case of legitimate amendment mandate.

The Supreme Court, as a means of necessity, undertook interpretation duties over two centuries ago, and for all of the experience it has gained in this capacity, the scope of this duty continues to change and be challenged constantly. In closing, perhaps that is part of the beauty of the American system, and the essence of what the Court is trying to do- question the validity of challenges to freedom, justice, and due process under law.

References

Raskin, J. B. (2003). Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs. the American People.
New York: Routledge.