We oftentimes tend to think of Judiciaries as apolitical institutions intended to enforce the law and hold the Totality and even the State to account. Constitutions are the supreme law, defining all Intents and Obligations for the State, Totality, and Self. Everyone is bound to the Constitution just as they are bound to the Legal Code. Nobody, not even the State, is above the law and their actions will be judged. The authority to judge the State, Totality, and Self belongs to the Judiciary.
Sounds straightforward or simple to follow, right? Well, one cannot always take for granted that every Judiciary is going to be truly apolitical. There is going to be occasions where the Judiciary will be expected to decide its political-economic loyalties and allegiances. When those loyalties become apparent, the State and Totality will judge them accordingly. After all, nobody is above the law. The same ought to be said about the Judiciary.
A true Judiciary will not be static or divorced from the National Consciousness. It too is going to be influenced by that National Consciousness insofar as the judges and jurors are also members of the Totality. For Judiciaries tasked with interpreting the Constitution, especially its Intents and Obligations, an important question arises. Is it better to have a strict interpretation of the Constitution or a loose interpretation? Should someone follow the Constitution to the letter or its spirit, its sense, its lessons?
What is written in any Constitution is superseded by how the Judiciary interprets that Constitution. Beyond interpretations of the Constitution, what is the most important above all is discerning what somebody intends to with their Constitution. That, I think, is decisive. A Constitutional Intent could tell us the rationale behind a Constitutional Obligation, but it cannot predict how somebody intends to uphold those same Constitutional Intents and Constitutional Obligations.
Leave a Reply