Justice Thomas and The Lost Constitution

Justice Thomas and The Lost Constitution

Introduction

            Myron Magnet presents a personal biography of the life and career of Justice Thomas in this book. She recounts the changes that the supreme court has undergone under justice Thomas. When Thomas took on as a judge of the supreme court in 19191, he realized that the judges had personal interpretations of the constitution, which contradicted the desires of the founding fathers (Myron 15). Their interpretations had created a big divide in the nations. Thomas tackled issues such as natural law, natural rights, and had a particular interest in federalism. This paper will review the book by handling the issues the author states he was more passionate about. Since his inception, Justice Thomas has become the new face of an independent, wise, and effective judiciary.

Constitutional philosophy

Thomas believes in the originality of the constitution. The author states that Thomas focused on the interpretation of the original constitution and not on judicial precedence. He believes that while the US accommodates all people, the constitution must remain as the guiding principle or the people (Jonathan 17).  Thomas views the constitution idiosyncratically. The constitution is the law and not the guide for the law. As such, Thomas Supports originalism. In that, there are no better interpretations of the constitution than the terms written on the constitution. Furthermore, he argues that during the framing of the constitution, the founding fathers had no considerations or race, gender, and other discriminative factors (Robert 2665). As such, he has found himself conflicting with his colleagues; most of him are in favor of using precedence over the supremacy of the constitution.

Concept of judicial review

Justice Thomas has shown reliance on the concept of legal realism when handling judicial review (Myron 15). He believes that the judiciary has a role in controlling the executive and legislature only to the essentials. For instance, on immigration, he states that while the law allows the right to movement and protection from harm under the Geneva Convection, this freedom is only enjoyable to the point where there is no probability of harm befalling on the citizens of the US. As such, seeking asylum based on gun violence must not only prove that his or her life is in danger but show that the violence would not spill to the US. As such, he states that the duty is to protect the people lies on the executive and the legislature. As such, the judiciary must not hinder this duty in its bid to monitor these two organs of the government.

Constitutional Concepts of Natural Rights

Thomas has the belief that the judiciary should put its energy on enforcing natural rights, as stated in the constitution. He believes that these are the inalienable rights ” provided to man by God. They include the right to life, right to movement, wight to own property, freedom of speech, freedom from discrimination, and the freedom of worship and expression. As a result, his stance remains on the judiciary preserving these rights over the creation of new once. (Robert 2269). He states that rights such as the right to privacy are unnecessary and hinder governments from fulfilling their functions. However, he supports any right that intertwines or is indirectly connected to the alienable rights, such as the right to picket since it is directly linked with the freedom of speech (Robert 2257).  He remains the only supreme court judge in fifty years who maintains that the constitution is the only right interpretation when it comes to determining cases relating to rights and freedoms of American citizens

Federalism

Justice Thomas is a strong supporter of the union and is a member of the Federalist supporter. Over the years, he has opposed laws that may weaken the union or may plunge the union into conflict (Myron 15). However, he has also shown considerable opposition to the federal supremacy laws. These are laws that provide that the federal law supersedes all other laws of the US. He argues that when federal laws pre-empt state laws, federal law diminishes the value of federalism. Additionally, he opposes the Commerce Law, which gives congress the power to regulate trade among states (Richard, 15). He argues that favoring federal law legislative organs over state laws that govern trade is diminishing the importance of autonomy of the states. For instance, in the case of Gonzales v. Raich, 2011,  while all the supreme court judges agreed that congress had the oversight over state laws concerning patients planting their own Marijuana, he vehemently opposed this proposition stating that states must maintain and protect their laws.

Conclusion

Judge Thomas carries praise and condemnation from all sides of the American divide. However, he has redefined how laws are reviewed and the mechanism for accepting judicial precedence. Over the thirty years, he has served as a member of the supreme court. He has promoted the originality of the constitution over supporting judicial precedence. Since his inception, Justice Thomas has become the new face of an independent, wise, and effective judiciary.

Besides, he is a strong supporter of the alienable rights that are indicated in the constitution by the founding fathers. He believes that these rights form the vital human rights, and the judiciary must focus on developing these rights over creating new ones.