Judiciary

When the founding fathers of our country, and by that I mean the Federalists, were creating the system of government for America, they knew that a separation of power would be necessary to protect the American people from the evils of a monarchy or dictatorship. In doing this, they created the three branches of government; Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary. The plan was to have the Legislative make the laws, Executive enforce the laws, and the Judiciary interpret the laws, and it was Madison's system of "Checks and Balances" that would keep the three in check. No one branch would be able to exploit it's power without the scrutiny of one of the other branches, it seemed to be the perfect system. However, when the Federalists proposed this system of "Checks and Balances," they really didn't consider the Judiciary that much of a threat of power, and because it wasn't considered a policy making branch like the Executive and Legislative, it really wasn't thought of as part of that system. Basically, the Judiciary would make sure that no law was unfairly enforced on somebody, and anything else would merely be a bonus. The system of "Checks and Balances" would then be the Executive watching over the Legislative

Countless decisions have been madewhere the use of the Constitution was not an option, and interpretation was theonly means of deliberation. 279) The point here isthat proportionately, the Judiciary yields as much power and policy makingcapabilities as any of the other two branches of government, and that thedecisions made by the Supreme Court are in fact equal in stature to Congresspassing a Bill into law. Because of this vagueness, the Judiciary branch has been able to blossominto a political force in our government. Countless other examples exist to back up thisclaim, but it would be entirely too monotonous to go through them all. Wade case, it succeeded in not only making abortion the right of a woman todecide on, but it also succeeded in setting forth a precedent of policy makingin America. Of course federal representatives like the President do have term limits, butthat is do mainly to the range of his constituency and power he has, and termlimits only assure the protection from a dictatorship. To be more specific it wouldbe Congress watching over the President and the President watching over Congress. It is the only wayhandle a situation that the Constitution does not address. The SupremeCourt would render decisions based on the laws drafted into the Constitutions,and it would be asked to interpret them to the best of their ability. I sustain that the founders did not expect the Judiciary tobecome such a force in the policy making arena, but considering the way they setup the Constitution, I do not think they would be disappointed by the way theJudiciary has dealt with such controversial issues. So what is the Supreme Court supposed to doin these types of situations The answer of course is to take the matter intotheir own hands and interpret the law as THEY see fit. In conclusion, I feel we have shown that the Judiciary branch hasevolved into an equally powerful branch of government as the Executive andLegislative. The system of"Checks and Balances" is well in tact, with the Judiciary Branch making surethat policy and legislation is fair and constitutional, and is shown through thedecisions they have yielded. Becauseof this expectation to "interpret", the Supreme Court has been allowed todevelop the power to change policy in America. The founders absolutely knew that one day theissue of slavery would have to be dealt with, but at the time of the drafting ofthe Constitution, when they are essentially trying to sell people on the idea,it would not be a very prudent thing to bring up.