• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Actively Destroying the Republic

    Robert Bork at Heritage (Photo by Andrew Blasko)

    Robert Bork at Heritage / Photo by Andrew Blasko

    Former judge Robert Bork delivered the first lecture in Heritage’s Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture series that is a part of a larger 10-year initiative started by the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies to bring back judicial restraint and the rule of law.

    The title of Bork’s lecture was aptly named, “A Republic — If You Can Keep It.” It was taken from a quote by Benjamin Franklin when asked what the Founding Fathers were giving to the American people when drafting the Constitution. He correctly asserted that the republic is contingent, not guaranteed. Bork contended the courts are a great threat to keeping the republic. Instead of interpreting law on the basis of the principles set forth in the Constitution, judges interject their own morality and political beliefs in their arguments.

    Despite being nowhere in the Constitution, and its dubious beginnings, judicial review has become not only widely accepted, but also widely expected. Imagining a court without it is impossible. With it, the court assumes much greater power than it was ever intended to have. In Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton states:

    Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.

    Now, nine justices (often split 5-to-4) instantly make the executive, legislative and all the state governments irrelevant. When Canada was drafting its constitution, Bork stated, they wanted to avoid the “American Disease” of judicial review. However, Bork pointed out, Canada soon found out it was a judicial disease. Bork said an originalist view of the Constitution is the only way to interpret it without eroding the Rule of Law. Originalism is interpreting the Constitution the way the framers intended it to be. It is also called “original intent.”

    Since 1965 and the Griswold v. Connecticut case, the Supreme Court has been very actively interpreting the Constitution to fit its own morals. There has never been legal, or Constitutional, backing for Roe v. Wade and there never will be. Justice Harry Blackmun agreed with Roe and used the newfound right of privacy that the court found in the 14th Amendment.

    This creates a slippery-slope of arguments and morality. The Supreme Court has become an agent of change that reflects only the morality of the intellectual elite. Bork referred to these people as “Olympians.” They reside on “Mount Olympus” and grant us their knowledge and impose it upon us if necessary. The court was never meant to be an agent of change, and that much power in the hands of nine unelected people with lifetime terms is extremely dangerous and not found anywhere in the Constitution. Bork ended with a quote from Justice Antonin Scalia:

    The Court must be living in another world. Day by day, case by case, it is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Actively Destroying the Republic

    1. Susan, GA says:

      I have never felt so uncertain about my country. The courts are going against voters' decisions and creating new laws {the legislative branch is bad enough in that area}. We do not need anymore liberal judges. Obama, as president, is a bad choice for so many reasons. The Dems. have ruined our economy {Fannie, Freddie & no U.S. oil drilling}, and now they are going to correct it – please! Of course, Bush & the Dems. have made us look like a third world country by taking over our banking system, the prescription drug fiasco is robbing my mother every month and the illegal aliens will soon be citizens. The Constitution and the Rule of Law does not seem to matter anymore, and the concept of less government is not even on anyone's agenda. I appreciate your work and thank you for helping to keep conservatism alive. I miss Reagan, but I have high hopes in Palin. Thank you.

    2. brad parson says:

      i believe the framers intended the supremes to be a buffer twixt state and fed legislation. the argument that obama makes that a liberal who leaves must be replaced by a liberal is BS! nowhere in the constitution is there a provision for a balance between judges who follow it and those who do not. ALL MUST FOLLOW IT1

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.