Overview

• A higher court, which, in a federalist system could be called a federal court, can be crucial for striking down laws of local communities that do not comport with the Legal Principle.
• With both bad-faith interpretations and good-faith but unreasonable interpretations of the Legal Principle, a civilized society needs a higher court staffed by experienced judges who have the 3L Philosophy in their heart and employ substantive due process to invalidate laws and rules inconsistent with any reasonable construction of the Legal Principle. Bad-faith and unreasonable interpretations of the Legal Principle each violate its spirit and true meaning.
• It takes a genuine commitment to the Legal Principle as a fundamental law of human life to always be on guard against erosion and “special exceptions” that nullify the underlying Principle. Without sophisticated, qualified, and nuanced thinkers genuinely committed to the Legal Principle on a reviewing court, we cannot long maintain a free and peaceful world.
• Federal courts themselves can be overseen by International Courts that take the broadest definition of reasonableness to determine if a particular law aligns with the Legal Principle.

Example

• Imagine a local community established a law deeming it a criminal offense for any person to utter any offensive word. Upon a proper federal legal challenge to that local community’s criminal law, it would be appropriate for the reviewing federal judge to conclude that local community law violates the Legal Principle. The federal court would declare the state law unconstitutional.
  • This procedure applies even if the federal judge personally abhors offensive words.
  • This result remains appropriate even if the Supreme Court of that particular region previously ruled that the criminal law prohibiting all offensive words was valid.
  • It is also of no consequence and irrelevant that most people who live in that local community strongly favor such a law prohibiting all offensive words.