John Marshall Vs Thomas Jefferson on Constitutional Interpretation
02. May, 2009 
3 Comments
by Gennady Stolyarov II
In Marbury v. Madison (1804), John Marshall argues that the Supreme Court ought to have the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws which come before the court. Since the judges must apply the laws to particular cases, they must necessarily “expound and interpret” those laws.
Furthermore, since the Constitution is superior to an ordinary act of the legislature and cannot be annulled by such an act, the judges-when faced with a law contrary to the Constitution-must strike down the law so as to uphold the Constitution.
Otherwise, the power of the Constitution itself would be nullified, and the courts would be forced to uphold the very injustices against which the Constitution was meant to protect.
If, for instance, Congress had passed an ex post facto law, and an individual were prosecuted under it before the court, it would defeat the purpose of the Constitution if the court were forced to convict the individual under the law. Marshall emphasizes that court justices take an oath to support the Constitution, and it would thus be immoral for them to violate what they have sworn to support.
Those who insist that the courts do not consider the constitutionality of laws in their decisions are in effect insisting that the justices violate their oaths. Furthermore, “the judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution,” and thus it would absurd for the courts to examine a case arising under the Constitution without examining the instrument under which it arises.
In his letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Thomas Jefferson argues against exclusive judiciary construction of the Constitution; such exclusive power of constitutional interpretation would, according to Jefferson, undermine the principle of checks and balances-since it would allow the judiciary department to prescribe rules for the government of the others.
If the judiciary has sole power of constitutional interpretation, then the Constitution “is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
Jefferson instead recommends that each department be truly independent of the others and have the right to decide for itself the Constitution’s meaning in cases submitted to its action-especially in those cases where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.
Marshall and Jefferson present two diametrically opposed views of the nature of constitutional interpretation, and it is regrettable that Marshall’s view has been virtually uncontested in the United States during the past century; Jefferson was correct to warn that giving the Supreme Court sole ultimate power to interpret the Constitution would shift supremacy from the text of the Constitution to the subjective wishes of Supreme Court justices.
Perhaps it is time to give each branch of government the sovereignty to judge for itself what is constitutional, and the ability to act as a check against misinterpretations by the other branches.
Gennady Stolyarov II is an independent philosophical essayist, composer, amateur mathematician, contributor to Mises.org, editor-in-chief of The Rational Argumentator and The Progress of Liberty, and a high-ranking content producer on Associated Content.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
What is the point in comparing Marshall and Jefferson’s ideas on what federal branch(es) should ultimately be the final interpreter of the Constitution since anybody can pervert the Constitution?
And why do people seemingly regard the Constitution as something chiseled in granite? I suppose that when minority factions win an interpretation of the Constitution that favors them, that they would like the majority to forget that the Constitution is amendable.
With these things in mind, consider the following. Note that the 11th A. was made to “overturn” the USSC’s decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793). So when the USSC rubbed the states the wrong way in the early days of the country, the Constitution-savvy states put the feds back on its constitutional leash by amending the Constitution. But as a consequence of widespread ignorance of the Constitution today, particularly ignorance of state sovereignty among state government leaders, the states are unnecessarily letting themselves be victimized by the power-hungry, Constitution-ignoring federal government.
Again, the states, not the federal government, are the ultimate seat of authority in the good old USA.
The President and Congress could make some progress in this area if they chose to. For example, the Supreme Court could decide that Congress had not overstepped their Constitutional grounds when they pass a law banning all arms (a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment).
The President could not overturn the Judiciary or Legislative branches on this but he could provide a blanket pardon for all those who run afoul of the law. Likewise, Congress could pass legislation that countermands whatever decision the courts come up with. Although the courts would perhaps also rule improperly on those cases, Congress can pass laws faster than the courts can decide cases.
I need to give a ‘thumbs up’ to Johnson as well in that the States have largely abdicated their authority and forgotten their Constitutional rights (9th and 10th Amendments).
Of course, that brings up the 17th Amendment which, by changing the way Senators are elected, took a lot of power away from the States.
I could easily give up the second amendment since its completely redundant anyway; The Federal government has no authority to regulate gun ownership outside of Washington DC anyway, let them run their DC – haven’t they been doing a fine job of it?
Massachusetts and California can deny their citizens the right to keep and bear arms – let them, it’s fine with me. I’ll live in a state where citizens are armed with no federal say so whatsoever.