"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I seem to remember that the
Founding Fathers instituted something like the 3 branches of
government. Legislative, executive and judicial IIRC. If that is
indeed correct, the SCOTUS has ultimate power over what the
Constitution means. Etc, etc.

That's the current understanding, but irrelevant.

Now you've got me. I have NO idea what you really mean. The
Constitution is the foundation of the law. It can only be changed by
amendment, IIRC. So in my opinion it is ALL-important. Does that
mean I'm not left-leaning?

No, it means you are wrong. While ONE mechanism for changing the
Constitution is by amendment as you said, there are others. One
trivial way is for Congress to assert that a bill it passes is not
subject to judicial review. Fortunately, this is rare.

Another is by re-defining what the Constitution says.

The word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution. The Court,
however, says that privacy exists in the "emanations and penumbras" of
the document itself.*

Words sometimes change their meanings. "Suffer the little children to
come unto me" does not mean children should be whipped before they go
to church! When the King James Bible was written, "suffer" meant
"allow" (from whence we get the word "suffragette"). "A well-regulated
militia..." meant having a firearm that works properly . We see
remnants of that definition in a "well regulated timepiece." There are
those who would take "well-regulated" to mean "organized and subject
to military discipline and regulation," but they fail to note that the
2nd Amendment was written BEFORE there were any government
"regulations" to speak of.

The interesting question, then, is whether the Court sticks to the
ORIGINAL meaning of the Constitution's words, or whether the Court
applies the CURRENT meaning of the words.

It's not trivial.

---------------
* Interestingly, the Court has found that privacy exists only in
matters of sex. There have been only three cases before the Supreme
Court that have been decided on the basis of privacy:

* Griswold v. Connecticut on the issue of birth control,
* Roe v. Wade on the issue of abortion, and
* Lawrence v. Texas on the issue of unnatural sex acts.

Of course you are right. Doesn't the Constitution describe how it can be
amended? And isn't judicial review included in that? As far as words
changing meaning over time, that is only natural, otherwise we would all
still use something akin to Neanderthalese. An important aspect for the
courts to decide. And much breath has been spilled over that!!

Sorry, I can't find anything about your statement that Congress can
assert that a bill it passes is not subject to judicial review. That
seems contrary to everything I'd believe in.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid