Why We Need Judicial Review

OPINION

The Judiciary system at Springs is so interesting to me. Tasked with enforcing students' standards that are made by the StudGov, Judiciary meets weekly to hold hearings based on “records” that can be written by anybody. Ms. Wainwright, the Faculty Liaison for Judiciary, tells me that the vast majority of these records are for minor offenses, particularly skipping town meetings and inappropriate phone use. The disciplinary committee handles more major infractions. The way the Judiciary is currently run is already a very unique product of our school, and something we should be proud of. But recent developments have convinced me of the need to take Judiciary in an interesting new direction, one that could redefine the body and help protect our constitution.

It is no secret that I am a critic of some recent changes made at this school. If you read my article Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death  then you will know about the new policies that restrict the freedom of students. I believe that the Judiciary can play a major role in shaping the discourse around them. In constitutional law, there is a process known as judicial review, wherein the courts have the ability to interpret the constitution and decide when actions taken by the government are unconstitutional. This power was established in the case Marbury v Madison when the supreme court declared a decision by James Madison to be unconstitutional. I believe this same principle should be used by the Indian Springs Judiciary. The Indian Springs constitution currently has no enforcement mechanism. We follow it for the most part, but there are significant cases where we do not. For example, the constitution says elections are to be run entirely by students, but in reality the Dean of Students office does most of the work. If the judiciary started using the principle of judicial review to interpret the constitutionality of actions by both StudGov and the administration, it would ensure that unconstitutional actions do not occur. I am not saying that all of the new changes in administrative policy are unconstitutional, but that is something that should be decided by an independent body. The way it would work is like this: A student dislikes a new policy from the StudGov or the Administration. The student makes an argument to StudGov as to why it is unconstitutional. The creator of the policy argues back and then the Judiciary uses the constitution to determine who is right. To ensure a balance between student desires and those of the administration, I would further propose that the Faculty Liaison, Ms. Wainwright is given a veto over the Judiciary’s decisions. This system better mirrors the U.S. court system and would do a great deal to teach students about constitutional law. At the same time, it gives the students another outlet to challenge rules that they find unfair.