[jivatmanx]

At a point in our nation's early history, we decided to trust Constitutional interpretation to the Supreme Court. There were cons to that decision - the Constitution is our social contract and thus it's interpretation is ultimately up to the people - but on the whole I think it was a good one.

But, if for whatever reason, this Judicial review cannot occur - whether that be willful avoidance by the DEA for "Parallel Construction", or various activities related to the FISA Star Chamber - that's a problem that needs to be solved, lest the constitution lack any enforcement ability whatsoever.

[samstave]

Well, when the NSA is spying on and potentially blackmailing the Supreme Court itself, then it really doesn't matter.

Watch this vid with Siebel Edmund's where she says that the NSA has basically just extended to a massive degree the level of blackmail that intelligence has used since the days of Hoover.

The 4th branch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc3esnkqM7E&feature=share

[rustynails]

Watch this video at around 22 minutes, http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/kill-the-messenger/

Dear Mr Obama - please explain why we are REPEATING the same thing. Shame on you if you fool us once, shame on us if you fool us again...

I was shocked when I watched this video. It's all happening again...

[SimHacker]

The correct assumption is the more some politician supports the NSA, the dirtier stuff they have to blackmail them with. I wonder what Pelosi's secret is?

[dragonwriter]

> At a point in our nation's early history, we decided to trust Constitutional interpretation to the Supreme Court.

I don't think we did.

We gave the federal judiciary responsibility, within the government, for resolving cases and controversies arising under the federal Constitution and laws, including, inter alia, questions cases and controversies involving disputes over whether a government act was consistent with the Constitution (we did that, incidentally, at the point when we ratified the Constitution.)

However, that in no way makes the Supreme Court exclusively responsible for interpreting the Constitution, the President is also given a duty to preserve the Constitution and see that the laws are faithfully executed, and that duty requires interpeting the Constitution even when there is no legally cognizable case or controversy for the judiciary to decide.

And Congress, of course, has both powers and obligations under the Constitution which require it to interpret the Constitution -- again, even when there is no legally cognizable case or controversy for the judiciary to decide.

And, ultimately, the whole system relies on the people interpreting the Constitution and holding those in government office accountable to it, whether there is a legally cognizable case or controversy for the judiciary to decide, and whether or not the judiciary is willing to do its duty properly when such a case or controversy exists.

[cortesoft]

The idea that the interpretation of the Constitution is up to the people sounds like a good idea; however, how exactly would that work in practice?

We obviously can't just let each individual interpret it how they see fit, or it becomes effectively meaningless. It would be equally impossible for each Constitutional question to be 'voted' on by the people.

Is there a way I am missing? It seems the courts are the only logical choice to interpret the Constitution.

[dragonwriter]

> The idea that the interpretation of the Constitution is up to the people sounds like a good idea; however, how exactly would that work in practice?

The people individually would decide what the Constitution means, and they would -- having made those decisions -- individually and collectively act to hold incumbent officials and candidates accountable to those interpretations through voting, public advocacy, protests, and, in extreme cases, direct action.

> We obviously can't just let each individual interpret it how they see fit

Not only can we, but we really have no other choice; whether we like it or not, each individual will do that, even if "how they see fit" is to delegate the interpretation to some individual authority, or the collective wisdom of the rest of the population.

[jivatmanx]

Great post. I think my central point is that it's dangerous for a democratic society to believe that nine robed Brahmins are the only people qualified to interpret it.

[mpyne]

I think courts are the logical choice but I don't think it's ideal that the only way you can get Constitutional questions decided is by getting screwed by an Unconstitutional decision already made somewhere and then getting it overturned, or by having the government try to Unconstitutionally beat you over the head and winning your case.

[jivatmanx]

Congress must take seriously the idea that upholding the Constitution is a central duty, and that the existence of the Supreme Court does not in any way eliminate that duty.

[anigbrowl]

The other (albeit largely theoretical) possibility is a Constitutional Convention.

[FedRegister]

The people are trusted with the interpretation of Constitutionality and government legitimacy through Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1, Article I, Section 3, Paragraph I (as amended), Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution, Article VI of the Constitution, The First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution.

[CamperBob2]

Exactly. The doctrine of judicial review wasn't even part of the original plan.

[dragonwriter]

> The doctrine of judicial review wasn't even part of the original plan.

This is frequently stated but borders on nonsense. The framers could not have failed to understand that to resolve cases and controversies arising under the Constitution, the federal judiciary would necessarily have to resolve cases and controversies where the question was that an act of Congress was inconsistent with the Constitution.

Certainly -- many of them being practicing lawyers -- they would understand that courts resolving legal questions first have to determine what the controlling law is, including resolving apparent conflicts between different laws by reference to various principles as to which laws take precedence.

"Judicial review" is just the name given to regular process of legal construction when, in addition to the canons of construction that were established prior to the Constitution, the principle of "the Constitution trumps all other enactments" is added.