and with what results the Constitution has been expanded, developed, modified, by interpretation; and with that view there are three points that chiefly need discussion: (1) the authorities entitled to interpret the Constitution, (2) the main principles followed in determining whether or no the Constitution has granted certain powers, (3) the checks on possible abuses of the interpreting power.
1. To whom does it belong to interpret the Constitution? Any question arising in a legal proceeding as to the meaning and application of this fundamental law will evidently be settled by the courts of law. Every court is equally bound to pronounce and competent to pronounce on such questions, a State court no less than a Federal court;[1] but as all the more important questions are carried by appeal to the supreme Federal court, it is practically that court whose opinion finally determines them.
Where the Federal courts have declared the meaning of a law, every one ought to accept and guide himself by their deliverance. But there are always questions of construction which have not been settled by the courts, some because they have not happened to arise in a law-suit, others because they are such as can scarcely arise in a law-suit. As regards such points, every authority, Federal or State, as well as every citizen, must be guided by the best view he or they can form of the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, taking, of course, the risk that this view may turn out to be wrong.
There are also points of construction which every court, following a well-established practice, will refuse to decide, because they are deemed to be of "a purely political nature," a vague description, but one which could be made more specific only by an enumeration of the cases which have settled the practice. These points are accordingly left to the discretion of the executive and legislative powers, each of which forms its view as to the matters falling within its sphere, and in acting on that view is entitled to the obedience of the citizens and of the States also.
It is therefore an error to suppose that the judiciary is the only interpreter of the Constitution, for a certain field remains open to the other authorities of the government, whose views
- ↑ See Chapter XXIV. ante.
