This created a second way of governing the country – a new constitution, I would argue.
The United States began to follow a different political pattern than Western democracies traditionally had — one that escaped democratic accountability.
Certain non-governmental actors, notably foundations, were now licensed to bring about political change — not through the people’s representatives in Congress, but through the courts and the regulatory agencies. But this change was authorized to move in only one direction.
The judicial power was believed to be the weakest among the branches of government as Hamilton once pointed out. Did the civil rights era turn this initial belief upside down?
Hamilton meant that the judiciary had no constitutional entitlement to make laws, and no means of enforcing its will against the other branches.
But certain judges, at certain times, aspire to make law.
to make law.
In 1954, in its Brown v. Board of Education decision, the Supreme Court ordered a nationwide program of school desegregation, and was obeyed. Because it was obeyed, the court acquired a de facto (not a constitutional) power to make laws, one that opponents of segregation (and eventually progressives more generally) came to rely on. To that extent, Hamilton’s belief has indeed been turned upside-down.
Is it fair to define it as an imbalance between democratic decision-making and decisions imposed by the judiciary?
Yes, I think that is fair. The American founders looked to classical antiquity for a model of how to organize a government. They settled on a tripartite model of executive, legislative and judiciary, assuming that each of these branches of government would be checked by the other. The 20th century American experience has revealed that, in normal circumstances, it is very hard to check a willful judiciary.
Could the judicial politics of the Trump administration change these developments?
Discontent with many aspects of the political system is what brought Trump to power. But the Trump administration did almost nothing to address this problem of what we might call the “two constitutions.” That is no surprise. The administration had a poor understanding of how politics operates in general, no interest in the specific constitutional issues that we have been talking about, and zero expertise in hiring people who might have helped them understand such things. There was no contact with the issue at any level.