For instance, should the 14th Amendment be interpreted using its 1868 meaning or should one use modern-day meaning in interpreting it?
I'm all in favor of Congress taking the lead! In fact, I'm really in favor of a process of medium step, feedback, medium step, feedback, including one in which we regular citizens learn from our mistakes and get better over time. That is, we add the goal of rapid-cycle feedback to transparency, and then we might really be onto something!The job of the court is to adjudicate the law, not make it. If they came down on the side of the powerful, while doing their job, it is because the law favored the powerful.
Yell at Congress, not the Court.
I'm all in favor of Congress taking the lead! In fact, I'm really in favor of a process of medium step, feedback, medium step, feedback, including one in which we regular citizens learn from our mistakes and get better over time. That is, we add the goal of rapid-cycle feedback to transparency, and then we might really be onto something!
And yes, at the same time I'm concerned about minority rights, pretty much what they teach in high school civics of majority rule/minority rights.
Actually, my point here is that the meaning of various parts of the U.S. Constitution is, in very large part, subjective.I'm curious if you're looking to start a discussion on the varying theories of Constitutional Jurisprudence. If so, my point is that its neither here nor there, and there are far more qualified individuals out there to argue the merits in either direction.
If not, thats still my point.
Actually, my point here is that the meaning of various parts of the U.S. Constitution is, in very large part, subjective.
Not in my universe they're not.Rapid cycles of legislation are too disruptive.
Not in my universe they're not.
I think as long as we do neither baby step nor giant step, but instead solidly medium steps, I think it's pretty good. Citizens can get clear feedback on what's working and what's not.
In fact, I think this iterated method of medium step/feedback works so well that I take four or five random persons and over some months, we could become a fair to middling rock bank and I'm not even that musical!![]()
The Supremacy Clause of Article VI defines the Constitution as the US' fundamental law, and as such all other laws have to be inaccordance with it. Article III determines the Court's jurisdiction and gives it the "judicial power" of the US. This gives it the responsibility of ensuring the constitutionality of federal, and state, laws.
Because Article III Section 2 defines the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to include appellate jurisdiction over the laws of the United States and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land. As determining what law is applicable in a particular case is a fundamental duty of courts in general, the Supreme Court has the power to determine that a given law violates the Constitution and is therefore inappplicable, which is the power of judicial review. Essentially it is an implied power arising from other provisisions of the Constitution.The Third Article doesn't mention the constitution. How can it be that the SCOTUS has the right of judicial review if it isn't actually mentioned in the constitution?