lawyer can interpret my contract. Right.
The supreme court is part of the government; the contract is with the government.
The supreme court can't interpret the Constitution, it can do as you say, determine if laws are Constitutional. That's interpreting the laws, not the Constitution. Interpreting the Constitution is putting the cart before the horse. But the Supreme Court cannot say "The 1st Amendment means that people can say the word "bark" and nothing else." The 1st Amendment means what the 1st Amendment says, without context to the practicalities of the modern world. To adjust what the Constitution says (and thereby "interpret" it,) requires the consent of both members of the contract; the government, and the people, by way of amendment.
It's a semantic argument, actually. Personally, no, the Supreme Court cannot tell me what the Constitution means; I can read, and I can think. When the government (Supreme Court is one branch of gov't) violates the contract by interpretting it to mean something other than what it says, the people should not then be bound by the contract.
Con artists would love a con whereby they tell the mark what the contract means, because the con artist tells the mark that the contract is too complex for an ordinary mark to understand, because it doesn't mean what it says.
|
