First Among Equals: The Supreme Court In American Life (2002) - Plot & Excerpts
Despite of my limited legal background, there is always an impulsive thrust urging me to understand the legal framework and how it fits in the society. One of the interesting topic I came across while staying in Beijing is the Supreme Court and its basic roles and functions. Before focusing on this book, we shall come back to the basic understanding of the tripartite division of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, which was advocated by Montesequieu, Hamilton and others. The title "first among equals" essentially infers that judicial branch (the Supreme Court) is the authority or the hidden leader to the other two branches even though allegedly the three branches share the same rank. One can be somewhat certain that the system's early designers failed to reach the idea of "first among equal". Rather, they proposed that comparing to executive and legislative branches, "the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous [branch] to the political rights of the Constitution". Thus, idealy there will be three questions regarding US modern Supreme Court: 1) Is the Supreme Court “the branch of government with the authoritative role in vital issues that deeply affect American life and politics", or simply put "Is it first among equals"? 2) Is the Supreme Court the "least dangerous" branch comparing to legislative and executive branches? 3) Can "first among equals" and "least dangerous" co-exist? This book deals with all three questions but with an emphasis on the first one. And it does a good job. The center of the issue is stated by the author as the following: "In a constitutional democracy, the Constitution is the ultimate authority, binding on all branches and levels of government. But the Constitution, since it is a written document, must be interpreted. Who is to do that? May each branch of government interpret the Constitution for itself? What if the president or Congress reads the Constitution differently from the Supreme Court? Which branch prevails?" Initially, branches are co-equal. But in Marbur v. Madison (1803), the Chieft Justice John Marshall mandated that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This seems to be the ideal situation to the author. He argues that if who has the correst interpretations of constitutional matters remains unsettled, there is always a propensity for sword or the purse to substitute genuine actions of law interpretation that is grounded in principle. And judiciay branch is the least dangerous branch, if it strickly restrict to its assigned functions. Therefore, judicial branch is the authority of vital issues, especially regarding constitutional matters; At the same time, it is the least dangerous branch by confining its duties. Thus, both roles co-exist. This book is a good introductory book on the subject and deserve the merit for three reasons: It adequately addresses the origin of the Supreme Court and background of the underlying issue; It contains numerous well-known case studies illuminating the principles behind functions of the Supreme Court; it is written in plain English, which make the general public and young punks like me without legal background the intended readers. For those who are interested in subjects regarding the Supreme Court of The U.S., here is the recommend reading list. Some of the works provide a totally different perspective of the Supreme Court. * <> * <> * <> * <>
What do You think about First Among Equals: The Supreme Court In American Life (2002)?
