Perhaps the question might be ‘fine-tuned’ a bit: do we believe the Constitution designates the Judiciary as the ‘final’ arbiter of our laws, with the Supreme Court as the highest court (and therefore, the ‘last word’ when it comes to the Constitution)?
Given that the SCOTUS is not infallible – what resort might there be, should the court err in some way that fatally undermines the Constitution? No resort, whatsoever, because the federal judiciary alone is the arbiter of our laws? Most will quickly suggest that the other branches of the federal government will balance or limit federal judicial excesses – but as James Madison observed, it is not impossible that the entire federal government might support certain unconstitutional actions. (Indeed, we may have had glimpses of such circumstances, during the Obama administration.)
Some might then suggest that in any such case, the people should immediately invoke their God-given ‘right of revolution’. That is certainly a possibility, but hardly a desirable approach, since it could easily destroy the republic, in an effort to save it.
Obviously, there is a third alternative, to both the anemic and unreliable federal ‘checks & balances’ system, and the people’s right to revolt. One well-established point of view, dating from the early years of the republic, was that the individual States, as parties to the constitutional compact, should interpose themselves between any ‘out-of-control’ federal government and their people – in other words, that the States should have the final word, in extremis, when it comes to the Constitution.
Food for thought, perhaps, given the recent behavior of one of our largest political parties…
I suppose that you intended this as some sort of rebuttal to what I wrote. If so it is a silly strawman argument.
Not so much a rebuttal, as an example highlighting the foolishness of those who simply declare that any high court edict (no matter how perverse) somehow automatically over-rides the specific written terms of the United States Constitution. In essence, “the Supreme Court said [fill in the blank], so that’s what the Constitution says!” Unfortunately, we’ve probably all seen that kind of nonsense suggested, repeatedly, even here at FreeRepublic…
“Given that the SCOTUS is not infallible – what resort might there be, should the court err in some way that fatally undermines the Constitution? No resort, whatsoever, because the federal judiciary alone is the arbiter of our laws? Most will quickly suggest that the other branches of the federal government will balance or limit federal judicial excesses.
Maybe, if the Court makes a mistake in judgment, Amend the Constitution to remedy the mistake. Worked in the case of the Dred Scott decision.