[smokeyj]

If constitutionality can't be deduced by the constitution, then what deduces it? The opinion of some judges?

If our fate is in the hands of a few judges (it is), doesn't this void our "democratic principles"?

I can't help but feel our understanding of government isn't much more than catch phrases and sentiment. Patriotism, we the people, one nation under god, the greater good, public servants, all total bs. If we criticized the processes of government like we did start-ups (such as the costs of value added), we'd be a whole lot wealthier. /rant

[Locke1689]

Your rant is misguided and childish. The law is dynamic because it must be applied in areas where no prior written text has a straightforward conclusion.

A simple example is wiretapping laws. Because of historical stare decisis interpretations of the Constitution, it is ruled a violation of the 4th Amendment for the government to wiretap a citizen without a court order. Nowhere in the Constitution is this protection written -- it required the application of the spirit of the document to the 20th century by the Supreme Court.

Fortunately, we don't need to bicker about this because you seem to hold the Constitution as the preeminent law of the land. Since the Constitution is correct by definition (according to you) and it gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over its interpretation, the Supreme Court is also correct by definition.

[smokeyj]

> you seem to hold the Constitution as the preeminent law of the land

To the contrary, my point is this document is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. So, who interprets it? The judges of course! The very people this document is supposed to protect me from. Seems a bit circular. Fast forward to year 2012, and judges say it's OK to seize domain names. How can the constitution defend my right to free speech and also defend the government's right to seize domains?

[Locke1689]

Fast forward to year 2012, and judges say it's OK to seize domain names.

Then it's Constitutional by definition. Congress, however, can pass a law amending the Constitution to prohibit the seizure of domain names. Then it's no longer Constitutional. Do they not teach the three branches of government or checks and balances in middle school anymore?

[chronomex]

Congress cannot amend the constitution as easily as it can pass a law. The States have to agree to it as well.

[Locke1689]

Yeah. It's the Constitution. It's supposed to be hard to change.

[yoyar]

yes, who watches the watchers?

[ugh]

Ever heard of separation of powers? Three branches of government?

[smokeyj]

Remind me, who was declaring war reserved for?

[shasta]

"and it gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over its interpretation"

[citation needed]

[Locke1689]

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

[shasta]

Right. Where's the bit about determining the constitutionality of laws? It's not spelled out

[Locke1689]

Just read Marbury v. Madison. I have no more time for a 5th grade civics lesson.

[shasta]

You should have revisited the situation after fifth grade. Fifth grade teachers like to simplify things. Marbury introduced judicial review. It's not in the constitution.

[nika]

You called him misguided and childish. You lose the argument.