The power of judicial review is an important feature of our federal court system. It allows the courts to nullify laws that are not consistent with the present-day interpretation of the U. S. Constitution by deeming them unconstitutional. This function grants the courts two major powers: the power to overturn legislation, and the authority to interpret the constitution and set a precedent that later courts will refer to. The latter of the two powers is by far the most controversial. The debate is centered on the most influential of courts, the U. S. Supreme Court, and it's enormous influence on the way that the Constitution is interpreted today. Some critics of the court contend that the original Framers of the Constitution would object to such and expansive power being levied by a branch of government that is largely unrepresentative because of the way in which justices are appointed by the president rather than elected by the people.

There are two schools of thought in regard to the way in which the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution. Former judge and Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork argues in favor judicial self-restraint.

Levy claims that it is "unrealistic beyond belief" to base constitutional interpretation on original intent. His argument is that, in the unlikely event that we could identify such intent, it would be necessary to regard these intentions within the context of the Framers' point of reference. The problem that Levy sees is that the conditions of those times no longer exist and cannot be accurately recalled by history. Levy summarizes his position by stating that original intent is ideal, but impossible due to the ambiguous historical record, as well as the difficulty in finding a collective thought process within a group of people, namely the Framers. Levy concludes by stressing the need to appoint justices who will see the need for continued constitutional evolution, rather than those who will embrace original intent and keep the Constitution in a "deep-freeze."

Bork admits that it is too late to reverse the effects of past constitutional embellishment, such as the printing of paper money. But he also claims that this is no excuse to continue the dilution of the document. Bork concludes by stating that a justice who follows a philosophy of "original understanding", as he calls it, will be more apt to follow precedent than a revisionist. This is important, Bork maintains, because today's society too often ignores the Constitution itself, and decisions of those who came before us.

Bork presents a pair of quotes from former Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall to illustrate his point. From these quotes, we are to conclude that a narrow interpretation should not be imposed upon the broad provisions of the document. Also, a judge is to interpret only what is written within the document, and nothing more. Bork stresses that judges should search for in the Constitution what they seek out in other laws and statutes: their meaning at the time they were written. Bork warns that, while judicial rewriting of lower laws and statutes is correctable, it is not possible to adequately correct the rewriting of the Constitution that is taking place. Bork claims that it is the very uncorrectability of these actions that causes many to favor the increasingly frequent departures from the original intent of the Constitution by the Court. The purpose o

Some common words found in the essay are:
Framers Levy, Constitution Court, Framers Framers, John Marshall, Original Intent, Leonard Levy, James Madison, Constitution Bork, Framers Constitution, Article Constitution, original intent, supreme court, framers themselves, historical record, intention framers, original intent constitution, according levy, unified intention, meaning constitution, interpret constitution, intent constitution, unified intention framers, base judicial decisions, original intent framers,
Approximate Word count = 1529
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)