Rosenberg's Argument That The Court Is The Most Dangerous Branch

If Rosenberg is correct, this does not mean that Hamilton’s argument that the Court is the “least dangerous branch” is also correct. Rosenberg’s view that courts can only produce significant social change given weak barriers and constraints does not by itself qualify Hamilton’s argument. There are other ways that the Court exerts influence in the political system other than promoting social change. There are three branches of government under the Constitution: (1) Executive, (2) Legislative, and (3) Judicial. The framers of the Constitution intended for the three branches to interact through a system of checks and balances, the mechanisms through which each branch is able to participate in and influence the activities of the other branches. In doing so, no one branch of government would grow too powerful and tyranny against the people, such as was viewed by the actions of Parliament, could be avoided. According to Hamilton, Congress has the power of the purse and the president has the power of the sword. The Court, however, is not powerless amongst these. A powerful tool of the Court is the ability to interpret the Constitution and this is applicable to scenarios outside of

Congress felt empowered to pass these economic parts of FDR’s program due to the commerce in tandem with the elastic clause in the Constitution. The Court, however, chose to interpret the commerce clause of the Constitution very narrowly, making it clear that not even an industry as vastly economically involved as the coal industry would fall under the commerce clause. By having the ability to interpret the Constitution broadly or narrowly at will, the Court demonstrated, at one of the toughest times in American history, that it was capable of wielding power and influence over both Congress and the