- Marionville mayor ‘kind of agreed’ with Kansas City shooter’s views
- Rev. Al Sharpton’s Easter message: Politically ‘crucified’ Obama has risen again
- Supreme Court to weigh challenge to ban on campaign lies
- UNICEF launches ‘Mr. Poo’ mascot in India to curb public defecation
- Teen taking selfie by train: ‘Wow, that guy just kicked me in the head’
- Goodbye, Afghanistan — hello, Africa: Air Force to shift as U.S. exits Middle East
- Iran mulls ban on vasectomies, decrease on abortions to bolster population
- CNN op-ed claims right-wingers ‘more deadly than jihadists’
- Classes resume at high school rocked by stabbings
- ABC News accuses Center for Public Integrity of stealing Pulitzer-winning work
GERBER: John Adams’ Supreme Court
How a Founder’s idea protects us still
Thiswouldn’t have been possible without John Adams. Although the Supreme Court’s power typically is traced to the 1803 opinion of John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison that the court has the authority to void acts of the legislature and the executive that are inconsistent with the Constitution, there would have been no “great chief justice,” as Marshall is called, without Adams.
Of course, it was President John Adams who nominated Secretary of State John Marshall to the Supreme Court in 1801. But Adams‘ most significant contribution to the court’s power was not his ability to recognize a talented jurist when he saw one. Rather, it was his articulation, as the American founding’s most sophisticated thinker, of the political theory of an independent judiciary in a 1776 pamphlet, “Thoughts on Government,” published during the initial rush of state constitution-making.
The pamphlet - a clarion call for separation of powers written in response to Thomas Paine’s recommendation in “Common Sense” that all government power be vested in a unicameral legislature - was influential in a number of state constitutional conventions beyond Adams‘ home state of Massachusetts, including those in New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Virginia. Adams argued in “Thoughts on Government” for a bicameral legislature: a representative assembly, “an exact portrait in miniature of the people at large,” and a smaller “council” chosen by the assembly and designed to “check and correct [the assembly’s] errors.” The executive should be chosen by the two houses of the legislature on an annual basis, and he should be endowed with the power to veto legislation. Most important of all, Adams explained the significance of an independent judiciary to any form of government dedicated to the preservation of liberty. He wrote:
“The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that.”
Adams recommended that judges be “nominated and appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of council.” However, he argued for more than merely making the judiciary a separate branch of government. He called for stable judicial compensation and tenure so long as judges behave well: “[T]hey should hold estates for life in their offices; or, in other words, their commissions should be during good behavior, and their salaries ascertained and established by law.” Adams also insisted that judges who misuse their offices should be impeached by the “house of representatives … before the governor and council” and, “if convicted, should be removed.”
Adams was serving as a diplomat in England during the framing of the federal Constitution of 1787. Although that Constitution excluded the executive from the impeachment process, it otherwise contained principles identical to Adams‘ proposal: The Supreme Court is a separate branch of government, the justices enjoy life tenure during good behavior, and their salaries cannot be diminished while they are in office. Without this political architecture created by Adams that guarantees judicial independence for Supreme Court justices, the United States never would have seen a John Marshall in 1803 or a John G. Roberts Jr. in 2010. After all, without judicial independence, no court could safely void an act of another branch. Bluntly stated, the risk to a judge who exercises judicial review when he or she is not independent of the executive and the legislature is either removal from the bench or a reduction in salary.
John Adams knew this, and so did the Framers who met in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 when they wrote Adams‘ theory of judicial independence into Article III of the Constitution of the United States. Thanks to John Adams, the American people, under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court, are the freest people in the history of the world.
Scott D. Gerber is a law professor at Ohio Northern University. His book, “A Distinct Judicial Power: The Origins of an Independent Judiciary, 1606-1787,” will be published by Oxford University Press in March 2011.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
By John R. Bolton
Reality calls for attaching Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan
Get Breaking Alerts
- 'Culture of intimidation' seen in Nevada ranch standoff
- HURT: Wilson and Obama ... 100 years apart, but so alike
- Rand and Ron Paul ride to the rescue for Bundy in Nevada standoff with feds
- IRS emails reveal discussion with Justice about suing nonprofits for election activities
- U.S. Navy to turn seawater into jet fuel
- CNN op-ed claims right-wingers 'more deadly than jihadists'
- GOP writes legislation to deny Attorney General Eric Holder his salary
- WEBER: Obamacare cuts home healthcare for millions of seniors
- Nevada Bundy ranch standoff could leave dirt on Harry Reid reputation
- Fuel-filled wings, ability to swarm: Pentagon offers glimpse at future of drone fleet
Recent Letters to the Editor
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Bundy support demonstrates voters' distrust
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Obamacare disasters were avoidable
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Muhammad wouldn't condone Boston bombing
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: High heels: Hazardous to one's health?
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Marshall's comments hurt GOP, pro-lifers