The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says?

And there you have your answer why the Supreme Court ruled the way they did.

 

No, it does not. In addition to being passed by both houses, it must be within the legitimate legislative powers enumerated in the constitution

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others.

 

What's this have to do with the article I section 8 powers grated to Congress?

 

That's not the point.

Do you apply these concepts to any other endeavor? Say, “A bridge is whatever an engineer says it is.” or “A medical procedure is whatever the doctor says it is” or “A monetary deposit is whatever the banker says it is.”?

There is a lot of silliness in these concepts. I laugh at the folks who claim the constitution magically changes meaning, to what they desire but cannot achieve via Amendment or Legislation. They nearly always are lawyers, who read and draft docs for a living. So I wonder:
Do their marriage vows magically change over time?
The deed on their home, does that also magically change over time?
How about their insurance policies?
How about their Will?

The Constitution says the President must be at least 35 years of age. If 5 judges claim "oh, that means 41!" Did the constitution suddenly 'change', or did 5 unethical liars manage to get on the bench?

 

The Constitution is what the judges say it is, period.

 

Then the air force and space force is not enumerated in the US Constitution, neither is right to privacy and a whole bunch of others.

BTW, if you are going to use this argument, then it must be all or none.

 

Technology changes. Ships are no longer restricted to the surface of the sea. Writing is no longer just paper and pen. Speech is no longer just vocalaization.

 

You're welcome to your view.

 

One could just as easily say, "The Constitition is what the president says it is, period."

 

SCOTUS has no backbone today. Its sole purpose is to protect the status quo for the oligarchy.

 

Nope. The President is not on the Supreme Court.

 

Quite true. But the president could opt to exectue laws (or not) based upon what he says the constitution says. See, it works for the exectuve as well as the judicial branch.

 

Nope. Only the SCOTUS has unreviewable authority.

 

And the constititon says this where?

 

". . . The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. In 1835, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence. "The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people.". . . "
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

Supreme Court of the United States (.gov)
https://www.supremecourt.gov › about › constitutional

". . . . While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court’s power of judicial review was not confirmed until 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. . . ."

 

Oh, I see. The supreme court said they have that power. Gotcha.

So maybe the exectuive might "find" that it is the responsibility of the executive to overturn unconstitutional legislation by not executing it. The chief executive, like all government officials, swears to uphold the constitution, right?

 

Andrew Jackson tried that and failed.

 

But the exectutive could make that case. I mean, the executive has just as much a right to determine what the constitution says as the judiciary right?

 

No, he does not. That role is reserved exclusively for the judiciary.

 

Oh right, because the judiciary says so. I forgot.

 

Yes. That's why the Court is the supreme court and the President is only the chief executive.

 

Just so everyone is a aware that judicial review is pretty much something that judiciary branch fabricated out of whole cloth. There is as much constitutional justification for judicial review as there is for executive review. Which is to say, none.

 

The link in #91 decisively refutes your claim.

 

You're referring to link #91 where you quote the judiciary saying that it has the power of judicial review?