How Should We Interpret the Constitution? (Who are the real guardians of our liberties?)

Prior to the Constitution, the U.S. legal system was based upon British Common Law, in which laws meant whatever judges said they meant. If the Founders intended for their new government to subscribe to the principle that laws mean whatever judges said they mean, there would be no need to have a Constitution which is available for anyone to read.

If the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, any legitimate law passed by Congress will indeed be Constitutional, since any statute which isn't Constitutional won't be a legitimate law. Likewise, the Constitution will say whatever any legitimate judicial ruling says it means, because any judicial ruling which is inconsistent with the Constitution will be illegitimate.

Unfortunately, many people have lost sight of some important cause-effect relationships. If Congress passes an unconstitutional statute and a court strikes it down, the fact that the statute is unconstitutional is not a result of the court decision striking it down. Rather, it was the fact that the statute was unconstitutional which compelled the court to strike it down; even if the court were to illegitimately declare that the act was constitutional, that would not make it so.

The real guardians of our liberties are us. Americans are independent thinking and each true American is capable of leading.
How Should We Interpret the Constitution? As it was written. It is written in simple English that anyone can understand.
Unfortunately the average liberal, democrat or progressive only speaks fluent moron and the Constitution is nor written in moron.

Excellent article reminds me of what was argued in the Federalist paper , and is the very definition of what nullification is.

Just one caveat. State officers also take the oath to uphold and defend the constitution that oath makes them as much as the Federal officers responsible to intercede to protect the people from theses intrusions.

To trust the Constitution into the hands of the Federal employees in black-robes is utter madness. It is not remotely the system of our forefathers.

It should be noted that if Marbury v. Madison were indeed the definitive case in witch the U.S. supreme court gave itself the authority to have the final word on the Constitution then Marbury would have gotten his writ of mandamus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Instead as the Federal court itself admitted it has no power to force the excursive to delver the writ of mandamus, and Marbury never got his writ of mandamus despite the opinion of the Federal Cort being with him.

You see even the stateist self-serving example does not agree with their self-empowering opinion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.