[thecodeore]

Actually the Constitution guarantees total and absolute freedom of speech, including the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater

Every court ruling to the contrary is activism in the face of the plain language of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has proven time and time again to be terrible protectors and stewards of the constitution

[chipotle_coyote]

Yeah, where the hell did the Supreme Court get the crazy notion that they're the ones responsible for interpreting the Constitution?

[thecodeore]

They are not, no where in the constitution is that stated.

To Quote Jefferson: "to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

No part of the Constitution expressly authorizes judicial review, nor does the constitution need "interpreted" it was written in plain language and the words are very clear

Lawyers and Judges have supplanted their desires for expediency instead of going to correct and harder path of amendment.

Take for example the 18th amendments, in order for the federal government to ban alcohol a constitutional amendment was required because the government lack the constitutional power to regulate any substance, fast forward about 40 years, and all of the sudden the constitution has been "interpreted" to allow the government to ban any substance it wants at any time it so desires.

No no, the constitution does not interpretation, it needs protection, it needs to be upheld, it needs a court that will defend it, not "interpret" it like it was some dead language that only those chosen few can possibly understand

[gte910h]

They actually made it up themselves in early court cases.