Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Email | RSS
How much power do judges actually have? Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78:
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.
So why do we treat judges as if they’re the final arbiter of the law? Why do we let them injure our rights in direct violation of the Constitution? I believe the answer is our own ignorance.
For example, is a law unconstitutional simply because it disagrees with what a judge thinks? That appears to be the situation with a federal judge in Florida who found a state law unconstitutional primarily because it disagrees with his beliefs about transgenderism. What about the judge in Texas who enjoined a rule from the Biden administration that effectively re-wrote the law? If one judge can say no, then another can say yes. What about the rest of the judicial system? Is the only restraint on their actions what the latest judge thought was right?
How can we have a government of but and for the people if those who are not elected are making all the rules?
The Constitution Study with Paul Engel on America Out Loud Talk Radio can be heard on weekdays at 4 pm ET. Listen on iHeart Radio, our world-class media player, or our free Apple, Android, or Alexa apps. Listen to other episodes of The Constitution Study, available on podcast.
America Out Loud is the premier news network with a diverse array of talk shows that inform and inspire. A daily resource for smart people.
