By Fred Harrison
For those of us who have spent nearly half a century standing in courtrooms, the true source of American greatness is not a mystery.
When we ask how the United States built the most vibrant, successful economy in human history, it is tempting to simply point to the ground beneath our feet.
We look at our vast natural resources, our protective oceans, and the undeniable industriousness of our citizens.
But if we are honest, many nations across the globe possess breathtaking natural wealth and hardworking populations. Yet, they remain economically stagnant.
America is entirely unique because our legal system took those raw ingredients and engineered them into an unprecedented winning formula.
It is nearly impossible to imagine how America could have achieved a fraction of its success without the specific legal framework that promotes, protects, and sustains our free enterprise.
At the heart of this formula are the twin engines of capitalism and property ownership. These are not merely economic theories; they are legal realities explicitly guaranteed by our founding documents.
The Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against taking private property without just compensation, alongside a robust tradition of strict contract enforcement, created the ultimate incentive structure.
When citizens know that the fruits of their labor and investments are protected by an immovable legal shield, they are driven to remarkable productivity.
Capitalism thrives because the law guarantees that the risk-takers and builders can reap the rewards of their industriousness. This legal certainty is the lifeblood of our economy.
However, this magnificent engine relies entirely on a foundational premise: that the words written in our Constitution actually mean what they say.
This is why a return to the original public meaning of our founding documents, as championed by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is of paramount importance.
A legal text is a binding contract with the American people, not a living organism that morphs to suit the fashions of the day.
When we abandon this originalist anchor, we lose the vital predictability our nation requires.
While this judicial temptation poses a severe threat to our economy, we have also seen its profound consequences elsewhere.
Over the past century, much of the social engineering in this country has been driven by rogue courts acting as unelected legislatures.
By stretching concepts like the "right to privacy" into unimaginable areas, courts have bypassed the democratic process to fabricate unenumerated rights out of thin air.
Without any explicit provision in the Constitution, the judiciary has intervened in deeply societal issues—from abortion and the redefinition of marriage to sudden dictates surrounding contraception, divorce, education and the modern boundaries of women's sports.
Whether one personally agrees with a specific policy or not, we must ask ourselves a critical, structural question: is this the kind of country we want? Do we want a nation where unpredictable rights, with massive generational ramifications, can suddenly emerge from the bench?
It has become so pervasive that generations grow up forgetting these mandates came from a courtroom, not the ballot box.
And the danger is clear: if the Constitution’s text can be stretched to socially engineer the nation, it can just as easily be stretched to dismantle the economic predictability that built it.
When I point out this judicial overreach, I am often accused of being overly critical of the American judiciary.
Let me be clear: my criticisms stem from a profound devotion to the rule of law exactly as it was envisioned by our Founders.
Recently, 110 signators put their names to a letter targeting me and the Freedom Caucus.
While political opposition is natural, such coordinated efforts often reveal a frustrating modern reality: a willingness to bypass rigorous, constitutional debate in favor of public posturing.
When political factions abandon the hard work of arguing the original meaning of our laws and rely instead on the sheer weight of signatures to marginalize those fighting for constitutional fidelity, they undermine the system that guarantees our liberties. It is a symptom of a broader cultural shift away from the text of the law and toward the whims of the crowd.
We must remember that a free republic requires honest players and predictable rules.
In my decades representing plaintiffs and defendants, I have seen firsthand how the civil justice system and tort law operate as capitalism's essential referee.
By holding wrongdoers financially accountable before a jury of our peers, the law forces corporations to internalize the costs of their negligence. It makes safety and diligence profitable.
This decentralized system of accountability ensures that the pursuit of capital does not trample the rights or safety of the individual, maintaining the critical public trust required for our economy to function.
America’s dominance was not an accident of geography; it was a deliberate triumph of the law.
By securing property rights, incentivizing productivity, and demanding accountability, our legal framework transformed raw potential into the greatest engine of human flourishing ever known.
To preserve this vibrant economy and our social fabric, we must rigorously defend the structural integrity of that framework.
We must resist the urge to govern through political mobs or judicial invention and instead anchor ourselves firmly to the original meaning of the documents that made our success possible.
Fred Harrison is a former member of the Wyoming House of Representatives and is an attorney in Cheyenne
