Without some authority to interpret the Constitution, it seems to me that the interpretation Constitution will only be that which the majority party in power wishes it to be.
Did you know that the Constitutional Convention considered a judicial veto of laws FOUR TIMES and rejected the notion? It is clear that if the Framers wanted to give the legislative veto to the courts, they would have done so. Instead, they gave it to the executive.
No, the system our Framers set up requires a virtuous people to send like minded people to Congress and the Presidency. They all take oaths to support and defend the Constitution and should do so. But if the people are so corrupt to send the likes of Bawney Fwank, Barack Hussein, Kennedy, Dodd, Waters, Feingold . . . there is no piece of paper that will secure our liberties.
>Without some authority to interpret the Constitution, it seems to me that the interpretation Constitution will only be that which the majority party in power wishes it to be.
The problem isn’t interpreting the Constitution, per se, it’s re-interpreting it. There’s a number of ways they do this, the “interstate commerce clause” is a good example thereof,as is the Keelo v. New London case.