Should the Supreme Court have the last word when it comes to interpreting the Constitution? The justices on the Supreme Court certainly seem to think so--and their critics say that this position threatens democracy. But Keith Whittington argues that the Court's justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the benefit of politicians. In this sweeping political history of judicial supremacy in America, Whittington shows that presidents and political leaders of all stripes have worked to put the Court on a pedestal and have encouraged its justices to accept the role of ultimate interpreters of the Constitution. Whittington examines why presidents have often found judicial supremacy to be in their best interest, why they have rarely assumed responsibility for interpreting the Constitution, and why constitutional leadership has often been passed to the courts. The unprecedented assertiveness of the Rehnquist Court in striking down acts of Congress is only the most recent example of a development that began with the founding generation itself. Presidential bids for constitutional leadership have been rare, but reflect the temporary political advantage in doing so. Far more often, presidents have cooperated in increasing the Court's power and encouraging its activism. Challenging the conventional wisdom that judges have usurped democracy, Whittington shows that judicial supremacy is the product of democratic politics.

It is Berger's theory that the United States Supreme Court has embarked on "a continuing revision of the Constitution, under the guise of interpretation," thereby subverting America's democratic institutions and wreaking havoc upon Americans' social and political lives. Raoul Berger (1901-2000) was Charles Warren Senior Fellow in American Legal History, Harvard University. Please note: This title is available as an ebook for purchase on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and iTunes.

Appendixes provide additional information on the Court such as the Judiciary Acts of 1789 and 1925 and a list of Acts of Congress found by the Court to be unconstitutional. New cases include: McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), United States v. American Library Association Inc. (2003), Bush v. Gore (2000), Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), Clinton v. City of New York (1998), Clinton v. Jones (1997), City of Boerne V. Flores (1997). The Guide also covers changes in Supreme Court's approach to religious freedom, the Rehnquist Court's legacy and the rejuvenation of federalism and state sovereignty. The power to investigate -- The power over internal affairs -- 5. The Court and the powers of the president : Article II -- The Commander in Chief -- The architect of foreign policy -- The president as executive -- The power to veto and to pardon -- Privilege and immunity -- The president versus the Court --