Quote:
|
It has alot more to do with the whole way the constitution is now 'interpreted',
|
dk....the founding fathers knowingingly and wisely drafted a Constitution in very general terms leaving it open to future interpretation to meet changing and evolving nature of the country.
The Supreme Court's power of "judicial review" was confirmed in 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.
As Marshall also noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind . . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated and minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."
What it comes down to is that the interpretation in 20th and 21st century American may be more expansive than in the 19th century....a natural progression envisioned by the founding fathers.
But decisions that you dont agree with are hardly a communists/socialist plot. While many basic interpretations of Constitutional rights stand the test of time, a 19th century interpretation of a more complex 21st century law or government action, which you seem to suggest is the correct role of the Court, would be as irrelevant and irresponsibile as it is ignorant.