The modern court and the reprisal of Lochner in election law and campaign finance

摘要

It has long been debated as to the proper role of the United States Supreme Court in the American political and legal process. This paper focuses on continuing that debate by arguing that the role of the Supreme Court should be limited in the specific realms of election law and campaign finance. By reviewing contemporary Supreme Court cases and scholarly works, I analyzed the Courtu27s actions, and found the Court using legal principles to interfere with the legislative power of creating public policy in the fields of election law and campaign finance. Since Congress is granted certain powers to act, it is for Congress to create policy in these areas, not the Court. That is why the Courtu27s role should be limited in these fields to actions that are beyond a reasonable doubt as promoted by James Bradley Thayer. By taking this limited approach, the modern Court under the cases of Bush v. Gore; Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission; Shelby County v. Holder; and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, has violated its powers of judicial review by overstepping into public policy determinations.