Question

Who has the responsibility for settling disputes over meaning in the Constitution?

Answer 1

The People, is the only sure-fire answer. The Supreme Court has said, in Marbury v. Madison, that it retains the right to declare laws unconstitutional. However, Congress and the President have also always been assumed to have the authority to decide constitutionality in the course of their normal duties, e.g. Congress can decline to pass legislation it considers unconstitutional, or the President can veto what he considers unconstitutional.

What is trickier is what happens when the branches come in conflict. For example, Congress says it has the power to declare war, and therefore the President can't send American troops into conflict for more than a brief time without Congress' approval, because that would be a 'war" and only Congress can declare a war. The President (all Presidents) disagree, but the issue has never seriously been tested. Either the President has asked explicitly for Congressional approval, as George W. Bush did when he sent American troops into Iraq (he got an "Authorization to Use Military Force" passed by Congress), or Congress has simply declined to interfere, which is the case with President Obama's military intervention in Libya, or the drone war on al Qaeda.

Can the President refuse to execute laws passed over his veto that he considers unconstitutional? Can he ignore an order by the Supreme Court he considers unconstitutional, e.g. one that constrains his powers as Commander in Chief? Can the Supreme Court command Congress to pass a law, as well as void a law Congress has passed? These and many other questions have never really been settled.

And there is good reason to suspect the Founders did not intend to settle them, and purposely left the "ultimate authority" of who is to interpret the Constitution unspecified. The reason would be that if any of the three branches HAD been given the full authority ot interpret the Constitution, it would ipso facto have become the dominant branch. There is NO WAY to have three co-equal branches of government unless you make all of them or none of them responsible for interpreting the Constitution.

So what did they expect to happen in practice? Probably what has happened, which is that each branch makes assertions of constitutionality, and gets away with being the final judge only when the other two branches don't object strenuously, which usually means in this particular case the people support that outcome. That tends to leave the matter fluid and changing, up to the mood of the people at any given time. That may be more flexible and robust in the long term.

Answer 2

supreme court