In his work “The Supreme Court and Constitutional Democracy” John Agresto states for the necessity for the Congress and the citizens, as the representatives of legislative and executive power to check the judiciary and to develop constitutional law by interpreting Constitution independently. He understands the provision of effective constitutional interpretation in a kind of cooperation between all branches of power that would stand for mutual oversight, mutual checking, and combined interpretation. Nevertheless, the role in the Supreme Court in American government is rarely considered as an interplay between the Court and other branches of power. According to Agresto, “constitutional government implies that the ultimate interpreter of our fundamental law is not an autonomous judiciary but an interactive understanding of the people, their representatives, and their judges together” (Agresto, p. 10).
John Agresto states, that judicial review has two main functions, which are – ensuring that a popular will conforms to the Constitution, and contribution to the demands of free society by preventing the Constitution from becoming an inefficient document. In “The Supreme Court and Constitutional Democracy” he explains his dual advocacy of judicial review. On the one hand, the Supreme Court has a function to prevent the democratic will from overcoming its values and becoming anarchic, and the role of judicial review appears to be minor in comparison. On the other hand, the Court’s being a leader in the making and enforcement of societal rules creates a possibility of establishment of judicial imperialism. John Agresto doesn’t accept any of these variants, but seeks a golden middle instead in encouraging both judicial activism and the coordinate review of judicial decision-making.
In my opinion, Agresto would have a rather controversial position about the Court’s decision in the City of Boerne that can either justify or accuse it. On the one hand, he would stand for the necessity of legislatives and executives to interact and take part in practical implementation of civil rights and freedoms such as the freedom of religion and expression of thoughts. But the fact, that the enlargement of the church was not included in the previously made plan of the city development has also to be taken into consideration. Such plans have to comprise the needs and interests of all population of administrative unit, and not a particular part, and a conclusion can be made, that this land was given for meeting the needs of the whole community. Besides, the reasoning of Justice Stevens supports this idea. According to him, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, “a law respecting an establishment of religion” is violating Constitution. If such an Act would provide some priority to the representatives of any religion to impact the decisions, which cover the interests of the whole community, such an Act would infringe the people who have different religious beliefs or are atheistic, and in this case the catholic church would have had priority. Therefore, I can assume that, even though he is a supporter of constitutional cooperation of all branches of power and society, in …