100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 9 pages.
The second difficulty from Jefferson’s point of view is Jefferson had a view of the Supreme Court that will sound surprising to modern ears. Jefferson was very uncomfortable with the idea that the Supreme Court should have a monopoly on interpreting the constitution. Because we all know what happens with monopolies, they lead to corruption, abuse of power. Well that’s no less true for the Supreme Court than in any other entity in society. So if they have a monopoly in interpreting the constitution, then what you’re really saying is that this small number handful of people is in effect running the country they get to interpret the constitution and no one can descend from their interpretation. Well what if they interpret it badly? What do we do then? That’s too much power to grant them. Jefferson envisioned the Supreme Courts role as being primarily an advisory body. Simply using its accumulated store of legal knowledge to render impartial judgments about particular acts. But they could not, in Jefferson's view, simply say this is the interpretation of the constitution everyone has to accept it. Jefferson believed that all three branches of the federal government not just the judicial, but also the legislative, and the executive, all three branches had the power to interpret the constitution. see even if let’s suppose that the supreme court says act x, y, or z is perfectly constitutional and nothing is wrong with it according to Jefferson the president never the less has every right to say I am vetoing it anyway because I believe that it is unconstitutional.Ok all three branches have to be able to interpret the constitution. So he wouldn't just resort to the Supreme Court either.So the only other real recourses remaining here is this idea of nullification or interposition. So with that idea basically boils down to is this very simple sentence which is that if the US government exceeds its powers under the constitution then a state has the right to nullify that is to declare null and void within that state any act that goes beyond the federal governments constitutional powers. The federal government passes an unconstitutional law, nullification says that the state can declare that law to be unconstitutional and for that reason refuse to enforce it. That’s the principle in a nut shell. Sometimes its, James Madison uses the term, interposition. Ineffect suggesting that at on the one hand you have the federal government and on the other hand you have individuals, but in between the two you have the state government. The state government in a case like this should interpose between, the federal government and their peopleto protect them from this usurped power, that’s the idea of interposition. Almost as if this bulldozer is going to knock down your house, lying down in front of the bulldozer would be like
interposition. Ok so that’s probably not going to work but that’s the idea of what it’s all about.