The Supreme Court and the Constitution. Interpreter, Arbiter, or Final Authority?
The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court.
It does not establish judicial supremacy over the Constitution itself.
Understanding the Court’s role is essential to understanding constitutional government.

Article III: What the Constitution Actually Says
Article III establishes:
• One Supreme Court
• Inferior courts as Congress may create
• Judicial power extending to cases arising under the Constitution
It does not grant the Court legislative power.
It does not grant the Court authority to rewrite the Constitution.
Its role is judicial — to decide cases and controversies.

Judicial Review
The power of judicial review — the authority to declare laws unconstitutional — was asserted in Marbury v. Madison (1803).
While widely accepted today, judicial review is not explicitly written in the Constitution.
It developed as a structural doctrine.
This raises an important constitutional question:
Is the Court the final interpreter of the Constitution — or merely one branch with interpretive authority within its jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court Is Not the Constitution
A Court ruling is not identical to the Constitution itself.
History demonstrates that Supreme Court decisions can be:
• Overturned
• Reinterpreted
• Corrected by amendment
Examples include:
• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
• Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
• Korematsu v. United States (1944)
The Court has erred before.
It can err again.
The Constitution remains the higher authority.

Separation of Powers and Judicial Limits
The judiciary was designed as the weakest branch.
It controls neither:
• The purse (Congress)
• Nor the sword (Executive)
Its power rests on legitimacy and interpretation.
When judicial decisions expand beyond textual limits, tension arises between:
• Judicial interpretation
• Constitutional structure
• Democratic accountability

The Debate Over Judicial Activism
Some argue the Court must adapt the Constitution to modern circumstances.
Others argue the Court must interpret the Constitution according to its original public meaning.
This debate is not partisan.
It is structural.
If the Constitution is flexible according to judicial preference, then its limits are fluid.
If its meaning is anchored in text and original structure, then its constraints are real.

The Role of the People
All federal and state officers swear an oath to support the Constitution.
Not to support the Supreme Court.
In a constitutional republic:
• The legislature makes laws.
• The executive enforces laws.
• The judiciary interprets laws.
No branch was intended to dominate the others.
Constitutional literacy among citizens remains the ultimate safeguard.

Below is a presentation addressing the Supreme Court’s constitutional role and limits.
Consider while watching:

• Is the Court interpreting text — or creating doctrine?
• Where does constitutional authority ultimately reside?
• What structural safeguards remain if interpretation becomes legislation?

Constitutional Perspective
The Supreme Court is essential.
But it is not supreme over the Constitution.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
The Court’s legitimacy rests on fidelity to that document.
When interpretation aligns with structure, liberty is preserved.
When interpretation departs from structure, power expands.
Understanding the difference is essential to preserving a constitutional republic.