Q, Where do you see that in my writing or in the constitution? THAT is the ONLY duty of the supreme court. To throw out unConstitutional laws passed by Congress or anybody else. Our Constitutional form of government has not been seen before or since it was developed. WHERE in the Constitution do you see that "judges are to 'interpret' the constitution"? Are you saying, "Well... they just didn't put it in there." WHERE do you see that judges opinions after the constitution was written could supercede the document itself? WHERE do you see that "case law {precedent} is law?? Now, I understand that the "courts" {Judges} HAVE made themselves above the law with this method. "THEY ARE THE LAW!!! BUT, is it legal UNDER the law?? Or is it merely the whims of man given the color and force of law withOUT legitimacy?? The Founding Fathers knew one thing that few judges seem to understand today. That the whims of even the most high are fallable. Even themselves, so they put provisions in the Constitution to facillitate changing the law itself. Just because that has been corrupted, are you in the opinion it should remain so??
You might consider changing the word "Congress" to "The Court" in the following phrase. Peace and love, George.
"Under your system, Congress passed a law, and it went into force. If that law did something that you think is unconstitutional (delegating trade authority), too bad -- it's law."
Actually, the duty to throw out unconstitutional laws is the one not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (it was merely assumed as a power of judiciary in our common law system). The rest, explicitly mentioned, mainly involve stating where the Court has original jurisdiction (as opposed to appellate, where the throwing-out comes in).
We're basically arguing semantics now. In order to decide whether a law is unconstitutional, the Court must interpret the Constitution (whenever you read a document, you're interpreting it -- that is, ascertaining its meaning, message and/or intent) and see if there is a conflict between the law as passed by Congress and the Constitution. If judges do nothing else, they interpret law, and the Constitution is law (they're not just there to sit pretty and say "Overruled" and "Sustained").
However, most people when faced with a SC ruling they agree with will say "They upheld the Constitution," but when faced with a ruling they don't like they shout "Activist judges, interpreting the Constitution to their own politics!"
You may want to ask yourself if you just don't like Fast Track, and will therefore make any justification for its defeat. In that case, you're arguing Constitutional principles not based on those principles alone, but on how they apply to a case you don't like. In that case, you should just argue Fast Track, not Constitution.
Me, as I've said, I don't have an opinion on Fast Track yet, as I can see both its advantages and dangers. I am just objectively arguing Constitutionality.