The judiciary is responsible for defining the law, as stated by Chief Justice John Marshall. This duty includes interpreting the Constitution and determining its implications. However, distinguishing what the law is from what the Constitution means involves separate processes.

The law focuses on cases and controversies, applying historical precedents to current situations. Conversely, constitutional meaning is abstract, shaping the structure of our political community. While courts influence constitutional understanding, public involvement is equally crucial.

Over the past fifty years, there has been a tendency to merge legal decision-making with shaping constitutional meanings. Legal historians Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan highlight a strong judicial supremacy, wherein a limited tribunal determines the Constitution’s meaning, shaping political structures.

Historically, the people, through Congress, have influenced constitutional meanings, challenging courts when overstepping. A key example is the response to the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott v. Sandford decision in 1857. The Republican Party opposed the decision, seeking to overturn it through legislation and reform. Members criticized a ‘court inflated with supremacy’ and emphasized Congress’s duty to intervene when a decision subverts the people’s rights and liberties.

Other influences on constitutional meaning exist beyond legislatures and politics. The Constitution wasn’t ratified solely by government entities. Instead, state conventions, involving a broad public participation to the extent possible in 1787, ratified it, reflecting the people’s sovereignty.