In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the peoples representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since [t]he judiciary . . . ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment. The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them. Id., at 471. Bound down, indeed. What a mockery todays opinion makes of Hamiltons expectation, announcing the Courts conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 yearsnot, mind you, that this Courts decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed....
"If the meaning of that Amendment had been frozen when it was originally drafted, it would impose no impediment to the execution of 7-year-old children today. See Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361, 368 (1989) (describing the common law at the time of the Amendments adoption). The evolving standards of decency that have driven our construction of this critically important part of the Bill of Rights foreclose any such reading of the Amendment. In the best tradition of the common law, the pace of that evolution is a matter for continuing debate; but that our understanding of the Constitution does change from time to time has been settled since John Marshall breathed life into its text. If great lawyers of his dayAlexander Hamilton, for examplewere sitting with us today, I would expect them to join JUSTICE KENNEDYs opinion for the Court. In all events, I do so without hesitation."
Of course, there is no widely held national consensus that executing 16 and 17 year olds is cruel and unusual, and thus I dissent from the Court's holding. It once again abused its power. Shocking.