Chief Justice John Marshall once noted the judiciary’s role in defining the law. This often implies interpreting the Constitution and solidifying its meaning. However, defining what the law is and what the Constitution means are distinct tasks. Legal matters involve case analysis, precedence, and broad principles. Constitutional meaning, on the other hand, involves the political community’s framework.
While courts contribute to constitutional understanding, the public also plays a role. It’s only in recent decades that legal decisions have been equated with defining constitutional meaning. As stated by legal historians Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan, this has led to judicial supremacy, where few judges shape our political structure’s foundation.
Historically, the public, through Congress, has helped shape constitutional meaning. A key example is the response to the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision in 1857. The Republican Party opposed the Supreme Court’s decision, seeking to overturn it with legislation and constitutional changes. They declared that Congress has a duty to override any decision that threatens citizens’ rights and freedoms.
There are influences on constitutional meaning beyond legislatures and politics. The Constitution wasn’t ratified by the Confederation Congress or state legislatures. State conventions, which included a wide public representation – as broad as possible in 1787 – ratified the Constitution. These conventions tried to reflect the sovereign will of the people.