Editor’s note: This is the first in a two-part opinion series on judicial nominations. The Spectator invites all readers, regardless of political affiliation, to contribute differing opinions to the editorial section.

In light of the recent confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, coupled with the potential for another Supreme Court nominee to go before the Senate in a short time, it is crucial for students to understand the long-lasting significance a Supreme Court justice makes that affects everyday life. Some recent court cases, most notably in the Supreme Court, are evidence that America’s judicial system has made a wrong turn, as it is drifting toward a state of despotism, and it must correct itself.

The judicial branch, one of the three main branches of government created by our founding fathers, was designed to interpret the law made by the legislative branch. The Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” and it is the document judges use to interpret the constitutionality of a law.

However, there are many ways judges interpret the Constitution. Some argue for a “strict” interpretation of the Constitution, while others argue for a “loose” interpretation of the Constitution. “Original Intention” aligns itself with the former, while a “Living Constitution” aligns itself with the latter. “Original Intention” interprets the Constitution according to the meaning of the text at the time of its inception, and what the words meant according to the founding fathers.

Those who believe in the philosophy of a “Living Constitution” interpret the meaning of the text more loosely because they argue that the text has no definitive meaning, and thus should change with the needs of society.

So what would the founding fathers have thought concerning the notion of a “Living Constitution?” Our founding fathers realized they could not predict the future, and changes to the Constitution would be necessary. They did not envision, nor would they embrace, the notion of a “Living Constitution” today. This notion is completely out of step with the founders’ intention of the Constitution because it crosses over into the Legislatures’ responsibility of making laws.

Rather, the founding fathers created a logical way to change the constitution, and it is called the amendment process – a process that requires a broad consensus among citizens and elected officials.

When judges rule according to the philosophy of a “Living Constitution,” they pour new meaning into old words, which in turn creates new laws and rights not intended to be created through the judicial system. That is judicial activism. Judges should not legislate. Rather, they should practice restraint by deferring to the people and their elected representatives.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 wrote in defense of judicial power and its independence. Both Hamilton and James Madison agreed that all political power is “encroaching in nature,” and that an independent judiciary was essential to keep the powers, created by the Constitution, in line with what the document actually says and means. Recently, however, the judicial branch has been overstepping its authority and imposing its will upon the people. At the same time, it is usurping the legislative branch.

There are several recent cases that help illustrate this fact. Kelo v. New London (2005) was a Supreme Court case that ruled that private property, an American pillar (life, liberty and property), could be taken for private use. In 2003, a Massachusetts Supreme Court case rejected that marriage was between a man and a woman. The Court did not allow the people, or elected representatives, to decide this. Instead, they embraced construed philosophies and decided for themselves.

Possibly even more chaotic are two recent rulings on the Ten Commandments. The two decisions yielded two separate results. One Supreme Court decision stated the display of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Another decision involving the Ten Commandments in the Texas State Capital did not violate the Establishment Clause. Now, not only can there be an argument that the Constitution can mean different things at different times, in addition, the argument exists that the Constitution can mean a different thing at the same time. Indeed, the judicial system’s notion of a “Living Constitution” desperately needs to be terminated.

We were intended to be a country ruled by laws, not a country ruled by men – especially unelected judges who insert their own value judgments and policy preferences into their rulings. We should not abandon the rule of law for a “Living Constitution,” which entangles the court systems in doubt.

Judicial activism is infringing upon the carefully crafted separation of powers, and a jurisprudence of “original intention” is the answer to our strayed judicial system.own value judgments and policy preferences into their rulings. We should not abandon the rule of law for a “Living Constitution,” which entangles the court systems in doubt.

Judicial activism is infringing upon the carefully crafted separation of powers, and a jurisprudence of “original intention” is the answer to our strayed judicial system.

Baldovin is a senior poltical science major and a columnist for The Spectator.