[Lord T Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by kia252

You know, that's a very good question. That seems like a problem with the Constitution more than my argument. There is the recourse that should a Justice(s) not act in "good behavior" and attempt to unduly expand their power, they can be impeached by Congress, a necessary check. Of course, the precedent for the expansion of judicial power would probably need to be overturned by the newly appointed Justice(s), since Congress, or anyone else, does not have the authority to overturn the ruling. As you have said, it's not perfect, but it's functional so far and must be accepted for faults as well as strengths if you want to argue the value of the Constitution.

No, it's not a problem with the constitution, it's the problem of the judicial branch doing what it is not authorized to do. The constitution does cover this as well.

As the lecture series pointed out, it is the people who are the ultimate arbiters, not the courts.

If that were the bigger question you should have asked it, so I could tell you that was not my argument. You asked how I could deny that people were blatantly ignoring the Constitution to get what they want. My response was that they believed to be upholding the Constitution, and even gave examples. They may be wrong, but that does not constitute blatantly ignoring the Constitution as much as having a faulty understand or interpretation.

I'm sure they tell themselves that and maybe even come to believe it but deceiving yourself doesn't make deceiving others okay.

But if these people are really that clueless about the constitution, what are they doing working in government in the first place?