Bigler/Franklin
Since 1789, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution and issued rulings that have affected every citizen and shaped American life. But in recent decades, the Court’s authority has expanded beyond its intended boundaries. Judicial Review allows an unelected body, the justices of the Supreme Court, to routinely overturn laws made by Congress and the President, who the people have elected. As a result of this judicial dominance, many Americans have been questioning whether the judicial branch is still balanced or if the scales have tipped.
The Bigler/Franklin ticket acknowledges the original purpose behind the Supreme Court and the role of judicial review, and agrees with the rejection of judicial activism, restraining courts from creating new rights or reinterpreting the Constitution. As a result, the Bigler/Franklin ticket aligns with the Perseverance Party and their commitment to constitutional originalism. This press release outlines the consequences of abandoning the original intent of the Constitution and the dangers posed by the judiciary’s growing power. The Bigler/Franklin ticket affirms that the solution is to allow the judiciary branch to conduct judicial review, but only under the guidelines of the Constitution's original intent.
In our current judicial system, there are many court decisions that have not followed the Constitution's original intent. Take Kelo v. City of New London (2005) for example. The Supreme Court’s decision on this case shows a perfect example of judicial overreach and a far difference from the Constitution’s original meaning. The Court, in a 5 to 4 ruling, sided with the use of eminent domain to seize private property and transfer it to another private party for the purpose of economic development. This view takes the Fifth Amendment’s wording “public use” and interpreted it to include “public purpose,” stretching the language of the constitution beyond its original intent. The Founding Fathers never meant for the government to take someone’s property just to help a business, and this action weakened the people’s right to own and keep their own land. In addition, by the Court accepting vague promises of economic benefits, it failed to show judicial restraint and allowed the government too much power. Instead of the government limiting itself to interpreting the law, it gave the government broad authority without demanding clear constitutional justification. This has led to an overly powerful judiciary that goes beyond simply checking the legislative and executive branches.
The solution lies in three different aspects: interpretation, restraint, and power. These judges must interpret the Constitution based on the original intent of how it was written. Interpretation is crucial because oftentimes it is taken out of context and not used as the Founding Fathers created it. Secondly, the courts must display judicial restraint by abolishing only the laws that clearly violate the constitution and not abolishing laws based on the public view, opinion, or modern social pressures. Furthermore, the separation of powers must be upheld. We all know from Constitution 101 that the government is made up of three branches of government that all work in equal balance. To keep this balance and the U.S. government from crumbling, the courts must avoid policymaking and instead defer to the constitutional authority of Congress and the President.
The Bigler/Franklin ticket strongly affirms its commitment to preserving the integrity of the Constitution. We acknowledge the vital role of the Supreme Court in upholding the Constitution through judicial review, but believe this power must be exercised through interpretation, restraint, and balance of powers. We believe that every American desires a just and fair judicial branch that does not overreach and holds to the law, and this is best accomplished through constitutional originalism.