Discussion:
The framers of the Constitution had the intention of limiting the government power and protecting the right of the individuals (Ivers, 2013). This is how we developed the 3 branches of the government. Each branch would be separate, but capable of holding the others responsible for their actions. This is where judicial review comes in. Judicial review is defined as "the court's power to determine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions (Ivers, 2013, 1.2, pg8)" that violate the constitution.
However, there has been much debate over the Constitution and what it means exactly. There have been questions over the purpose of the original written Articles. Were they written in stone or were they meant to be left open for interpretation to change as the times changed? The video stated that it was meant to be firm and flexible to meet the needs of an ever-changing nation (WQED, 1987).
I think that one of the main reasons that the historical origins are called into question was pointed out in the video. During the case, the Justices were discussing if they had the right to govern over the Secretary of State in this matter. One Justice questioned the language in which the Article was written that gave them the supposed power. Upon further review, another claimed that they didn't have to interpret it the way (WQED, 1987). How should they interpret it? In a way that gives them more power or a way that protects the right of the people? Which one is the reason the Constitution was founded in the first place? Many people question the acts of the courts due to the fear that their personal rights are being violated and taken away.
This fear is rightfully so. While the Constitution is meant to protect us, the very Article of judicial review has been working against us. I read an Article that claimed that "once the worlds collide, once the Bill of Rights guarantees are incorporated into the 14th Amendment, only one doctrine evolves- the doctrine expressing the fundamental rights that the court ‘found' in the 14th Amendment (George, 2001, p6, pg3)."
I think that it would be very safe to say that this is not what the Framers intended for the Constitution. Their fear was that the government would have too much power over the people. The government has used the people's very source of protection in order to award themselves with more power over the people. It has been so gradual that people haven't really noticed that that is what's happening. So I do not feel that the Framers would be pleased to see the governing in their statue today.
Resources
Ivers, G. (2013). Constitutional law: An introduction.