ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • History & Archaeology»
  • History of the Americas

Judicial Branch Not Co-equal but Weakest

Updated on January 9, 2017
Ms Dee profile image

Deidre has a Masters in applied linguistics and translation for her 20 years overseas, then she worked as a certified provider of the MBTI®.

The judicial branch of the U.S. government was set up as the weakest branch. It was not to be co-equal with the legislative and executive branches, but rather was to be controlled by the other two—the ones accountable to "We the people" through the election process.

A judgeship being a non-elected position does not mean the judicial branch was intended to be without accountability to the people. This branch was to be held accountable by the people through the other two—the legislative and executive branches.

These other two government branches—being elected by the people—were given more power to keep the weaker judicial branch accountable. The opinion of the nine people on the Supreme Court, therefore, was never intended to be a mechanism for the actual making of laws, as they were not given this power over people by "We the people."

Article III is much shorter

by Chuck Caveman Coker
by Chuck Caveman Coker | Source

Appointment of federal judges

Judges at the federal level of the U.S. government are placed in their positions by the two more powerful of the three branches of government. These judges are

  1. first appointed by the executive branch, the president, and then
  2. confirmed by the legislative branch, or Congress.

The Founders had had real problems with judicial abuses by Britain's judges. There were two main problems they had with the British judiciary. Sam Adams in 1765 stated these as

  1. life-time appointments, and
  2. judges unaccountable to the people.

Judges were appointed by the king and they would overrule laws and actions the colonies would take in their own legislatures. They solved such judicial activism problems by how they designed the U.S. Constitution. The Founders designed a judgeship of the U.S. federal court, even the Supreme Court, as a non life-time appointment.

Judges of good moral standing

In Article III of the U.S. Constitution, there is no mention of appointments to the court being for the life-time of the individual. Even more noteworthy is the statement that the individual appointed will hold their office as long as they behave well, or are of good moral standing. What a difference there would be were we citizens to hold our judges to this standard and expected them to act right!

Historian explains the judiciary from the Constitution

Judges are not to shape policy

The historian in this video explains how it was by design that the judiciary branch "had no major role in shaping policy in the nation." Just compare Article III of the U.S. Constitution with the first two articles. It is by far the shortest of the three!

It was not even until 1935, nearly a century and a half after the founding of the Constitution, that a separate building was provided for the U.S. Supreme Court. Not until 1956 did it even meet for most of a calendar year.

Clearly when reviewing our Founders' many documents they left us for our understanding, the judiciary branch was to be controlled by the other two branches. It was not to be more powerful, or even co-equal, but the weaker of the three branches of government. Each branch of the government is then controlled by "We the people."

Do you want life-time appointments for the Supreme Court?

See results

Responsibilities and powers granted the judiciary

Take a look at Article III of the U.S. Constitution and see what responsibilities and powers "We the people" have given the judicial branch of our government.

© 2011 Deidre Shelden


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Sueswan 6 years ago

      I voted no. Life time appointments to the Supreme court makes no sense.

    • Ms Dee profile image

      Deidre Shelden 6 years ago from Texas, USA

      So glad to have your comment, wba, pointing out this one way (of many) Congress has become irresponsible. This is another way Congress has failed to represent the will of "We the people." Lack of moral responsibility is behind the problem of not keeping our judicial system accountable.

    • profile image 6 years ago from upstate, NY

      Ms Dee-- This is all very true the judicial branch was intended to be under the oversight of Congress but today Congress has shirked its responsibility of oversight and allowed judges to legislate. Congress has to power to censor and remove judges for a wide variety of reasons including repeatedly ignoring the will of the people as is the case with the infamous liberal 9th circuit of California.