Perhaps I should finished the thought. It’s a pity you can’t be bothered to pay attention to something the conservative movement has fought for for 20 years at least.
“And it’s Scalia doing what you condemn Kennedy for.”
Did you read his side of the debate I posted?
“So in other words, something is unconstitutional because the president says it is or a congressman says it is? What if they disagree? Who’s right?”
Do you understand what “checks and balances” actually mean?
“Well, yeah. It is. That’s how it works.”
No, that’s not “how it works”. At least, not how it is intended to work. What you describe is tyranny. If the USSC, as an example, did what I suggested - redefine “we the people” in the 2nd Amendment, that would be an unconstitutional action.
Unless you’re one of those “living Constitution” people.
Apparently what it means to you is the same thing it meant to Jefferson Davis. "The true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object; whether it devises and creates an instrumentality for executing the specific power granted; and if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional." So in other words, so long as the law allows you to do what you want to do, it's constitutional. Scary.
Unless you’re one of those “living Constitution” people.
You believe the Constitution means whatever you say it means, or whatever the President says it means, or whatever 535 Congressmen say it means, and you accuse me of believing in a 'living Constitution'. Amazing. In your world it can mean 537 different things.