Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW


UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

2017-2018

JURISPRUDENCE
ARTICLE

ON

PROVINCES OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:


Mr. Manwendra Kumar Tiwari Shubham Singh Rawat
Assistant Prof. (Law) Roll No. 137
RMLNLU Vth Semester; B.A.LLB (Hons.)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I owe a great thanks to many people who helped and supported me during the making of this
project. I would like to express my special thanks and gratitude to my teacher Mr. Manwendra Kr.
Tiwari who gave me the golden opportunity to do this project which also helped me in doing a lot
of research work and I came to know about a lot of new things. Secondly I would also like to thank
my friends who helped me a lot in finishing this project within the limited time. I am making this
project not only for marks but also to increase my knowledge. Thanks again to all those who helped
me.

- Shubham Singh Rawat


Introduction:-

This article is of immense importance in the jurisprudence of American history due to the fact that
it was the worlds most successful constitution (written) at that time and the first of its true nature:
Constitution of United States of America. It was the ultimate source of law at that time and also
till today due to the fact that its provisions werent changed too much until now. Only 2 major
changes were made in that constitution in the form of amendments; firstly- Adoption of first 10
Amendments in 1791, which could be largely debated whether it was just a post stratification
change or a mere extension of the original drafting and ratification process. Secondly- In wake of
upcoming civil war 13th, 14th, 15th amendments were added in the year 1865, 1868 and 1870
respectively. During the amendments of constitution there were many landmark judgments
declared by the Supreme Court of US, Marbury vs Madison1 was one of them; Principle of
Judicial Review was applied for the first time in the US constitution history in this landmark
judgment given by the Supreme Court. SC announced for the first time that the court may declare
an act of congress void if its inconsistent with the Constitution. Hence Marbury was rightly denied
his commission by the SC who considered Court an equal branch in the form of federalist
government of US- equal in power to Congress and President. The importance of this case helped
in defining the boundary between constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the
American form of government.
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury vs Madison:-
"it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those
who apply the rule to particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that rule."2
Under Marbury Case, Federal courts decided about Constitutionality reasoning that courts must
resolve constitutional issues in order to perform their constitutional duty to decide cases and
controversies. It also decided that the SC could not issue the writ of mandamus that Mr. Marbury
sought against Mr. Madison. After the judgment of this case, there was a heated debate whether
the Congress would authorize the SC to issue original writs of mandamus without any
constitutional amendment. The answer to this question would be discussed nextly through various
landmark cases.
There are 2 alternatives to this question; either the Supreme Court's decisions are limited to the
particular case before the court, or they are binding on all parts of government for all purposes. On
the one hand, the Constitution is not the Supreme Court's exclusive property. It is the Constitution
itselfand not the pronouncements of the justicesthat is the supreme law of the land.
The Constitution's provisions are subject to different interpretations. There are some instances in
which it is not only proper but necessary for governmental officials not only to disagree with the
Supreme Court's interpretations, but indeed to conduct their official governmental business
consistent with their views of what the Constitution means, even when those views differ from

1
5 U.S. 137 1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352
2
U.S. (1 Cranch) at 177
those of the Court. On the other hand, there are some purposes for which there must be a final
authoritative governmental voice for constitutional meaning, and it is quite apparent for me that
federal judges are best qualified to perform that necessary task. For some purposes it would be
tantamount to anarchy to take the position that Supreme Court decisions have no effect outside the
context of the particular case in which they were developed.
Here are few cases mentioned in which the government officials followed their own constitutional
views which are thereby inconsistent with the order of Supreme Court.
Garcia vs San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 3over-ruled the National League of Cities
vs Usery.4 SC held in Garcia case that Concept of traditional government function was
analytically unsound and Congress had power under commerce clause to apply FLSA (Fair Labor
Standards Act) to employees of state and local governments. Hence Congress had power to
regulate wage and hour standards applicable to employees of state and local governments.
But in National League of Cities vs Usery case, it was held that Congress lacked authority to
regulate wages and hours of government employees and hence cannot constitutionally prescribe
minimum wages for state employees. The debate was largely based on these 2 cases whether the
decision of Judiciary were binding on specific set of people and not over Executives (President,
Congress).
When Congress passes generally applicable laws, states can be on the hook to comply with those
orders. Courts cannot do Judicial Review in this area since built-in political process is enough of
a safeguard. Hence FLSA could be constitutionally applied to state governments.
There were many Presidents in the US Constitution history like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew
Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt who used their veto power as president i.e.
head of government to enforce his rule over the two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.
Their main ideology was that each branch of government interprets the Constitution for its own
governmental purposes, and the interpretation of any branch is no more authoritative outside the
context in which it is exercised than the interpretations of the other two i.e. Judiciary and Congress.
All the 4 presidents had the similar view regarding the intervention of judiciary/ magistrate into
the matters of legislative/ executive branch. One of them stated that both magistracies are equally
independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The authority of the Supreme Court must
not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative
capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve. Hence these
presidents were against Judicial Review.

3
469 U.S. 528 (1985)
4
426 U.S. 833 (1976)
President Lincolns favorite example was the case of Dred Scott vs Sanford5:-
A slave (Dred Scott) sought to fight for his freedom under Missouri Compromise. At that time
when the legislators were drafting the constitution, the Congress passed an injunction to make
slaves a mere property; Hence slaves were NOT considered as citizens under US Constitution.
Under Missouri compromise, states like Illinois and Minnesota were considered as both Free
states. Hence Dred argued on the doctrine of Once free, always free since he had spent sufficient
time with his masters at these free places. What the court held in this case was surprising and are
as follows:-
1). Blacks had no rights in federal courts as federal citizens.
2). Missouri Compromise was considered VOID, Hence slave states were no longer to honor the
above-mentioned doctrine.
3). Congress lacked authority to ban slavery in US territories (Illinois, Minnesota).
Hence Scotts lost the case but in a longer run their case caused many civil movements across the
country which resulted in their freedom and abolition of slavery system in the US constitution
history.
A similar case of Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 vs Stotts 6 held that courts lack authority
under Title VII to order race-conscious layoffs in violation of otherwise applicable seniority
provisionsis binding only on the Memphis Fire Department and the particular union and
employees involved in that suit.
In Brown vs Board of Education 7case, Brown challenged racial segregation in school since racial
segregation by law violated 14th Amendment of the US Constitution (Equal Protection Clause-
guarantees rights to all US Citizens irrespective of colour).
Court held that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal and hence rejected the idea
of Congress to not expressly integrate the public schools during the drafting of the 14th amendment
in 1860s.
Hence Racial Segregation in public schools were held Unconstitutional.
In Cooper vs Aaron 8- The Little Rock Desegregation case, Abraham Lincolns view was proved
wrong in contending that judicial decisions concerning constitutionality were not binding in all
cases. Moreover, it involved state law-enforcement officials who were refusing to enforce
constitutional principles as determined by the Supreme Court. Hence the court held that the
Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all its cases were binding upon all states. Hence
states are bound by the courts decision and cannot choose to ignore them.

5
60 U.S. 393 (more) 19 Howard 393
6
467 U.S. 561 (1984)
7
347 U.S. 483 (1954)
8
358 U.S. 1 (1958)
Conclusion:-
Hence my opinion after making due research in this project was that orderly government under a
constitutional system requires a final authority to say what the Constitution means. For several
reasonshistory, common sense and the independence of the judiciary, among themI conclude
that that responsibility rests with the courts. I believe that this is where the Founding Fathers
intended it to be. Moreover, any other view would profoundly distort the separation of powers,
which is the touch-stone of our constitutional system. The power to declare constitutionality is the
only judicial power that approaches and keeps a check to the power of Congress to pass our laws
and to raise and spend our taxes, and the President's powers to veto, enforce the laws, and appoint
government officials, including judges. Hence final authority to interpret constitution is with the
Courts. A constitution is in fact, and must be, regarded by the judges as a fundamental law.
Perhaps more than any case other than Marbury v. Madison, Cooper v. Aaron has come to be
recognized as the bulwark against the extremist view taken by our earlier four Presidents.
Marbury vs Madison
It declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of
the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by the Court and the country as
a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.
Cooper Vs Aaron
If Brown v. Board of Education provided the foundation for school integration in the 1950s and
1960s, then Cooper v. Aaron provided the muscle. Though Cooper simply reiterated constitutional
principles that were already accepted, the decision affirmed the power of the federal courts to
enforce federal civil rights laws and court decisions against the states, and the primacy of the
Supreme Court in defining what the Constitution requires. As the Court declared, the states
compliance with the principles of civil rights, as articulated by the federal courts, is "indispensable
for the protection of the freedoms guaranteed by our fundamental charter for all of us. Our
constitutional ideal of equal justice under law is thus made a living truth.

Вам также может понравиться