Judicial Tyranny vs. the Rule of Law

When the Rule of Man replaces the Rule of Law, the constitutional order that once secured American liberty becomes poisoned and discarded, leaving only a path toward tyranny, decay, and the eventual destruction of liberty;

Douglas V. Gibbs ——Bio and Archives--March 5, 2026

Cover Story | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

The Founding Fathers feared judicial tyranny. They had watched British judges operate as little more than a rubber stamp for the Crown and Parliament, enforcing political will rather than the law. That experience shaped the debates at the Constitutional Convention, where some delegates even argued against creating a federal judiciary at all. A federal court system ultimately prevailed only because disputes between states, maritime cases, and controversies involving the federal government required it.

Even then, the Framers rejected the idea that the courts should be the final arbiters of the law or the Constitution. Judicial review, as we now know it, was not granted in the Constitution. The concept was discussed, and rejected on the floor of debate. However, it was later asserted by Chief Justice John Marshall in his judicial opinion regarding Marbury v. Madison (1803). Over time, political elites and the legal class accepted that assertion, and the judiciary gradually elevated itself above the other........

© Canada Free Press