Replies

You're confusing two very different concepts. To say that Congress should take it upon themselves to conform themselves to the Constitution, is no different from saying we all have the obligation to make sure we conform to the law. So of course to that extent we need to "interpret" the law in order to make sure we're obeying it. But that's not the same thing as having the power of interpretation - that is, to make our interpretations authoritative upon the rest of society. Only courts have that power.

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)

please read post#50 and give me your opinion as to my thoughts.

"You're confusing two very different concepts. "

No.

You have gone on this wild tangent without paying any attention.
Never have I said congress's interpretation was superior to the courts'

I'll stop here and wait while you go search for such a statement by me.