Hew's right, you know.
The problem with the Constitution is that it doesn't have a clear meaning.
And the SC changes its meaning. This has been done over and over. Separate but equal was constitutional. Oops, we changed our minds, no it isn't.
States can ban abortion. Oops, we changed our minds, no they can't.
States can regulate sodomistic behavior. Oops, we changed out minds, no they can't.
So the Constitution does not, for the SC, have a fixed meaning. It has a variable meaning, at least as applied to social issues.
Your view that the Court should be the arbiter of the Constitution would be fine if the Constitution meant one thing now and always. Some parts of it do, of course. But not all.
So the question becomes, as to the sections which do NOT have a fixed meaning, but have a variable meaning, who in a democratic republican form of government should determine at any given time what this variable meaning is -- legislators elected by the people and subject to unelection if they do not do their jobs to the satisfaction of the people, or an appointed oligarchy which has no accountabilty at all (except for the theoretical option of impeachment, but of course the Court will determine under what circumstances they can and cannot be impeached!)? |
