Who May Authoritatively Interpret the Constitution for the United States?

Throughout the constitutional text of the United States there is no clear instruction as to who may authoritatively interpret its meaning. Due to vague phrases and descriptions the constitutional text left much of the document in question. That is why from the beginning of its ratification until the present day the three branches of government have greatly debated the question of who has the power to authoritatively interpret the constitution. However, three main areas of authoritative interpretation have become popular over the decades. One area is Judicial Supremacy, or when the Supreme Court lays down the law of the land in which the executive and legislative branches must carry out. The second main area is Legislative Authority, in which congress has the final say in the interpretation of the constitution. The final main area of authoritative interpretation is departmentalism in which each branch of government determines their own disputes and interpretation according to their specific areas of concern making sure not to overlap into other branches territory. Even though all three of these areas have gained support, it has become apparent that over the years the people have come to trust judicial supremacy when it pertains to protecting the rights of the people and authoritatively interpreting the constitution.

While it is unjust to say that other branches of government may have no involvement what so ever in the interpretation of the constitution it is fair to believe that the Judicial Branch should have ultimate interpretation of the constitution. One reason for this is because Supreme Court judges have no other obligation other than to interpret the document. Judges spend most of their time defending fundamental law. They are more independent in their occupations than any other branch of government leaving less room for political obligations or special interests. On the other hand,

Legislative supremacy leaves more room for political obligations and special interests that may alter a decision because legislators have other jobs they must fulfill. Legislators must please the public so that they will have guaranteed seats during elections. They also must please the private sector in order to receive money for those elections. These political obligations may eventually interfere with the legislator's ability to decide cases according to fundamental law and protecting the rights of the people. For example Alexander Hamilton states in Federalist No. 78 that,

"This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion minor party in the community."

Hamilton's statement is true because the judges are so independent of other politics in the government, that they will have few instances to use the interpretation of the constitution to their advantage and discriminate against a minor community.

Also if legislative supremacy were to be used in any ultimate interpretation of the constitution, the chances would be higher for political corruption. Because the legislature works so closely with the people of the United States that means that they have even more influence. For example Hamilton states in Federalist No. 78 that, "The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated." The legislature, while interpreting the constitution, may be so responsive to the majority population of the United States that it may fall harder to ignoring the rights of the minority population. Also legislators may use interpretation to aid their chances of winning seats during elections and so on.

Judicial supremacy seems fit for authoritative interpretation because between disputes and controversies there will always be need for a mediator. The Supreme Court judges work independently without as much influence from the outside politics which helps them to focus more on the protecting those fundamental laws that are not specifically laid out in the constitution. As Senator Morris said during The Senate Debates of 1801-1802, "I answer, they (the judges) derived that power from authority higher than this constitution. They derive it form the constitution of man, from the nature of things, form the necessary progress of human affairs."