Replies

"Very scary stuff, IMO!"

Not really. I suppose you have to ask the question that ok, if they courts should not interpret the Constitution and decides what it means, then who should.

Anyway, I found it to be an interesting read and presents some interesting points.

"...if the courts should not interpert the Consitution, and decide what it says, then who should?"

That was Chief Justice Marshall's argument, that "the judicial Power" included the power of judicial review, the power to interpret the Consitution.

But the Consitution itself makes no such specific assignment of authority, and the oaths of office of everybody form the President on down to every soldier sworn into the Army requires that they "support and defend the Consititution of the United States." Since it would be impossible to do this *without* interpreting it, I hold that every official, elected or appointed is required and empowered to interpret the Consitiution, comesurate with their authority. And the authority of the President and the Congress is equal to that of the Supreme Court and superior to that of any of "the inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Everyone who can read with comprehension should interpet the Constitution. (Assuming anyone is too dense to understand it in the first place) We know what it says and any court or Judge that twist the easily understood meaning of it's words, should be impeached-not have his moronic ruling eternally over rule the Constitution itself.