The United States Supreme Court, integral to the American judiciary, is often seen as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. However, its history is not without blemish. Instances of reversed decisions and rulings diverging from constitutional tenets highlight the Court’s fallibility. These moments emphasize the crucial role of informed citizenry in shaping and understanding the judiciary.

Historical Overview of Supreme Court Reversals

The Supreme Court’s power to overturn its decisions reveals the dynamic nature of legal interpretations. Noteworthy examples include the landmark reversal in “Brown v. Board of Education,” which overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine (in public schools) established in “Plessy v. Ferguson.” Such reversals not only indicate the Court’s evolving stance but also point to its capacity for error, reflecting broader societal changes and legal advancements. The oscillation in the Court’s stance over time serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s impermanent nature and the ongoing need for vigilance in legal interpretation.

A lesser-known but pivotal reversal underpins the foundation of the modern fiat currency system. In Hepburn v. Griswold (1870), the Supreme Court initially ruled that paper currency, printed to finance the Civil War, could not be legislated into legal tender. This decision was grounded in the view that compelling the acceptance of paper money as legal tender violated the Fifth Amendment’s safeguard against the improper seizure of property. However, in a significant turn of events, this ruling was overturned a year later in Knox v. Lee (1871), which granted the government the authority to designate paper notes as legal tender.

Questionable Constitutional Interpretations

The Supreme Court’s history is punctuated by decisions that have been criticized for straying from constitutional principles. Rulings like “Dred Scott v. Sandford,” denying citizenship to African Americans, and “Korematsu v. United States,” supporting Japanese American internment, and “Buck v. Bell” sanctioning forced sterilization have been heavily critiqued. These decisions, impactful on public policy and individual rights, highlight the Court’s significant yet sometimes controversial influence on American society.

The Doctrine of Judicial Review and the Progressive Era Court

The principle of judicial review, established in “Marbury v. Madison,” empowers the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and annul laws that conflict with it. However, this power is not always exercised uniformly. Notably, during the Progressive Era, the Court did not find a single law unconstitutional for an extended period, nearly 75 years. This era saw the Court largely assuming the constitutionality of Congressional acts, reflecting a period where it appeared to defer to legislative judgment, presuming the lawmakers’ understanding of their constitutional limits. This period in the Court’s history exemplifies its varying approaches to judicial review and the potential implications of its deference or activism.

The Role, Power, and Education of ‘We The People’

Central to the Constitution is the principle of popular sovereignty, placing ultimate authority in the hands of the people. Historical movements, such as the civil rights movement, illustrate how public opinion and activism can shape judicial decisions and policy. However, effectively wielding this power requires a well-informed citizenry. A deep understanding of the Constitution, the judiciary’s role, and individual rights are crucial for meaningful civic engagement. Educational initiatives, public discourse, and active participation in democratic processes are vital in fostering an informed population capable of influencing government actions and ensuring adherence to constitutional principles.

Mechanisms for Checks and Balances

The Constitution establishes mechanisms to balance the Supreme Court’s power, including the roles of other government branches and the amendment process. These checks and balances are crucial for addressing potential judicial overreach and ensuring that the Court remains a true guardian of the Constitution.

Conclusion and Call to Action

The Supreme Court, despite its esteemed status, is not immune to critique or error. It is the responsibility of an informed and engaged citizenry to ensure constitutional governance. Engagement in civic duties, staying informed, and participating in the democratic process are essential for maintaining the integrity of our judiciary and upholding the nation’s founding principles.

 

Peter Serefine is a Patriot Academy Constitution Coach and Instructor for Institute on the Constitution, Author, Navy Veteran, and PA State Constable

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.

Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA