legislature, but also by a strong judiciary so that together a mutually respectful and independent partnership on behalf of the public's right to justice is maintained. Let me start the analysis with a familiar proposition uttered by a well-known figure: "[W]here the will of the legislature declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people declared in the constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter, rather than the former." This exhortation to the judiciary to defend the people from legislative acts not in conformity with the constitution, were not spoken by a Charter believer - or even a Charter agnostic. They were spoken over 200 years ago by Alexander Hamilton, one of the framers of the American Constitution. These words, articulated to confirm that the wishes of the majority, as expressed through elected governments, are subject to the demands of the constitution, are at the very core of the democratic commitment to judicial independence and constitutional supremacy. And what was there in the American constitution that made its framers so determined to keep its judicial reach beyond the grasp of the state? The protection of rights, the culmination of an historical evolution that started with the Magna Carta, wandered through the war with the Stuart Kings, found expression in the Act of Settlement and denial in the execution of Sir Thomas More, and ultimately escaped full-panoplied from the bizarre brow of King George III. The framers had experienced the ignobility of noble rule, and