America far and close. U.S. Supreme Court.
“The law is equally fair to all“, - these words traced over a main entrance to the building of the Supreme Court express the most important obligation of Court of the USA. This Court is the highest tribunal in the country for all lawsuits and controversial issues arising according to Konstitution or laws of the United States. Being final instance in legislative process, the Supreme Court is allocated with responsibility for ensuring justice of the law concerning all American people and, thus, acts as well as the guardian and the interpreter Konstitution. In the States unlike Russia there is no constitutional court therefore functions of the constitutional court are also assigned to the Supreme Court.
According to the chairman of this Court Charles Evans Hughes, the Supreme Court “is exclusively American according to the concept and the carried-out function“. One and a half centuries ago the French political analyst Alexis de Tosquevil noted a unique position of the U.S. Supreme Court in the history of the people and law: “The government system founded on representation is accepted in several states of Europe, but any country in the world which organized the bodies of the legal power in the same way till this moment as Americans is unknown to me... More majestic legal power was never created by any people“.
That unique position which is held by the Supreme Court in system of judicial authority is result, first of all, of deep devotion of the American people to board of the Law in the country and to the constitutional government. The United States, once again we will repeat, showed
unprecedented persistence on preservation and the written Konstitution`s protection, Nadj - Liv`s
, thus, the American “experiment of democracy“ by the oldest acting written Konstitution.
Konstitution the USA is carefully balanced document. It is written so that, on the one hand, to provide the strong and flexible government of the country which would be able to meet the needs of the republic, and with another - to provide due protection of the guaranteed rights of citizens; it allows to balance need of society as it should be and the right of an individual for freedom.
A difficult role of the Supreme Court in sheathe to system of the structure of the power in the USA follows from its right to declare invalid the legislation or actions of executive power which, on me - a niya of the Supreme Court, contradict Konstitution. This power of “judicial revision“ as it is called, allocated the Supreme Court with critical responsibility for ensuring the rights of the personality, and also for maintenance of “living Konstitution“, whose articles are constantly used in all situations. While function of judicial revision obviously by Konstitution is not provided, its inclusion in Konstitution was expected before the approval of this document. Till 1789 courts of states already declared unconstitutional those acts which contradicted constitutions of states. Moreover, many of founding fathers (Konstitution`s authors and founders of the United States of America) expected that the Supreme Court will assume this role in relation to Konstitution. A. Hamilton and J. Madison, for example, emphasized importance of judicial revision in “Documents of Federalists who called for Konstitution`s acceptance.
Hamilton wrote that, using practice of judicial revision, the Supreme Court will be ensured by those is which situation at which the will of all people as it is expressed in Konstitution, will prevail over will of the legislation which can express only temporary expression of will of part of the people. Madison said that Konstitution`s interpretation has to be given on reasonable judgment of independent judges, but not to the discretion of fussing and inconsistent political process. If each constitutional issue was resolved by open political trade, Madison noted, Konstitution would be brought together to the level of a battlefield of the competing fractions, political passions and spirit of addiction.
Despite such background, the right of the Supreme Court for judicial revision it was not approved till 1803 when it was applied by the chairman of the Supreme Court John Marshall in the case of Marbury against Medisang. In this decision the chairman of the Supreme Court claimed that the obligation of Court to repeal the unconstitutional legislation was a direct consequence of an obligation of the Supreme Court to support Konstitution. The ego the obligation to which the Supreme Court swore could not be executed any in any other manner. “To say about what is the law is an exclusive prerogative of judicial department“, - he declared.
Thus, it is possible to draw a conclusion that need for interpretation and Konstitution`s application by the USA was caused by its being. This document was made in quite general expressions and remained open for discussions. Thereby Konstitution was given an opportunity to adapt to the changing conditions. As the chairman of the Supreme Court Marshall in Mk noticed. Kullok against Maryland, Konstitution who would try to describe in details each aspect of own application “would bring the contribution in verbosity of the legal code, and would be hardly understood by mind of the person.... Thus, its being demands designation only of its basic principles, definition only of its basic provisions, and components of these provisions will be developed proceeding from a being of these provisions“.
Konstitution limits activity of the Supreme Court to consideration of “Affairs“ and “Contradictions“. John Jay, the first chairman of the Supreme Court, explained this restriction, having refused to give advice to the President to Washington of rather hidden sense of Konstitution concerning the proposed solution of a foreign policy question. The Supreme Court does not give advice, it expresses the opinion; its function is limited to consideration of concrete affairs.
Members of the Supreme Court have to be very picky, deciding what cases to consider as every year regular and federal courts more than 6 thousand civil and criminal cases move for consideration in the Supreme Court. In very small amount of the affairs arising from - for disputes between shtaga or states and the federal government, the Supreme Court possesses as well jurisdiction of court of the first instance. When the Supreme Court passes the decision on the constitutional question, this decision is almost final; it can be changed by only seldom used way of introduction of the amendment to Konstitution or by pronouncement of the new decision by the Supreme Court. However, when the Supreme Court interprets article, new legislative actions can be taken.
The chairman of the Supreme Court Marshall described the problem of support of the free government facing Court, noted: “We never have to forget that we interpret Konstitution... which intended to worry next centuries and, therefore, to adapt to various crises in affairs of people“.