That is their job, their duty.
If you think it neccessary to further state that they can be overridden by the Supreme Court so be it.
But that does not relieve them of their responsibility to write laws that conform with the Constitution.
The courts cannot tell them what laws to write that would fit with the court's interpretation of the Constitution!
"Reasonable" search of email is an excellent example of the congress interpretating the Constitution to write laws for situations undreamed of by our Founders. Only after that interpretation has recieved the authority of the congress and the president may the courts apply their interpretation.
Their interpretation is authoritative- unless overriden by the courts. It is the law.
Police or perps who think otherwise will be sadly disillusioned when they go to a court and say a law was without authority because the courts had not previously informed it with their interpretation!
"As the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departments of the United States are co-ordinate, and each equally bound to support the Constitution, it follows that each must, in the exercise of its functions, be guided by the text of the Constitution according to its own interpretation of it; and, consequently, that in the event of irreconciliable interpretations, the prevalence of the one or the other department must depend upon the nature of the case, as receiving its final decision from the one or the other, and passing from that decision into effect, without involving the functions of any other.
It is certainly due from the functionaries of the several departments to pay much respect to the opinions of each other; and, as far as official independence and obligation will permit, to consult the means of adjusting differences and avoiding practical embarrassments growing out of them, as must be done in like cases between the different co-ordinate branches of the Legislative department.
But notwithstanding this abstract view of the co-ordinate and independent right of the three departments to expound the Constitution, the Judicial department most familiarizes itself to the public attention as the expositor, by the order of its functions in relation to the other departments; and attracts most the public confidence by the composition of the tribunal."
To make sure I'm being understood:
Should congressmen vote for laws that do not conform with their interpretations of the Constitution?
Should presidents sign laws that do not conform with their interpretations of the Constitution?
Optional, (but more interesting) May the congress inpeach and remove judges whose interpretations of the Constitution are extremely different from the congress's?
(Back after Children of Dune- unless it's no good)
As to how this applies to what is the meaning of a "reasonable" search, or of any other language in the constitution, that meaning was not intended to be decided by the political branches. It is up to the policeman to know what the Constitution allows him to do and prohibits him from doing. Again, the law applies to him, so in the same limited sense as with the rest of us, he needs to "interpret" it enough to make sure he's obeying it. But neither his, nor Congress' interpretation is authoritative, as they do not have the judicial power, which by definition, is the power of authoritative interpretation.
Optional, (but more interesting) May the congress inpeach and remove judges whose interpretations of the Constitution are extremely different from the congress's?
He we need to split some hairs over the words "may" and "can". They can impeach and remove any federal officer for just about any reason they feel like, but they may not, constitutionally. As for the specific case with regard to judges' interpretation of the Constitution, I'd say at the very least they should have to prove that the offending judge knowingly intended to subvert the meaning of the Constitution. Otherwise they'd be impeaching him simply because they disagreed with how he did his job. This would defeat the whole purpose of having an independent judiciary. Think of it this way: If you're a judge, and you're presented with an act of Congress that you can see is unconstitutional, you know you're never going to be impeached for upholding it, even though you're violating your oath to the Constitution by doing so; but you do run the risk, however small, of impeachment if you were to strike it down. It's not hard to see which direction things would inexorably move in.
(Back after Children of Dune- unless it's no good)
I'd be most curious to know what you think of it (I may watch it someday when I have time)