Controversial Books | Page 486

464 Interpreting and Preserving the Constitution eral law or treaty or rendered an interpretation of the Constitution that was challenged by one of the parties. 8. In practice, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution, unless the Court’s interpretation is changed by the people and the States through the amendment process. Congress may also alter the Court’s jurisdiction, thereby making the State courts and lower Federal courts the ‘‘court of last resort.’’ In neither theory nor practice, however, is the court the exclusive interpreter of the Constitution. 9. Historically, the advocates of State’s Rights have tended to favor a ‘‘strict’’ interpretation of the Constitution, and those favoring a more powerful, centralized regime have tended to support a ‘‘loose’’ construction of the Constitution. 10. Although Federal judges individually enjoy considerable independence, the independence of the judiciary itself is substantially limited by the separation of powers and checks and balances system. 11. The Federal judicial power is the power of a Federal court to decide and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect between parties who bring a case before it. It is distinguishable from jurisdiction, which confers authority on a court to exercise the judicial power in a particular case. 12. The Constitution confers the judicial power on the Federal courts, but it is the Congress which confers jurisdiction; and without jurisdiction a Federal court cannot decide the case. The responsibility of limiting the power of the Federal judiciary and preventing abuses of the judicial power rests primarily with the Congress. A constitution,’’ wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, ‘‘is in fact, and must be, regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.’’ In carrying out this responsibility, what rules or principles of construction are the judges supposed to follow? The Constitution is silent on the question and thus offers no guidance. Congress is prohibited from imposing any rules of interpretation. It may regulate the jurisdiction of the Federal courts and tell the judges when they can decide a case, but it is prohibited by the separation of powers principle from instructing the judges on how they should interpret it; for the power to interpret the Constitution in a case