Constitutional Supremacy

It has been argued that the U S Constitution is a "living, breathing document", that it automatically changes with the times. "Original intent" has been used to justify clarification of archaic terminology, or issues that are not addressed by the Constitution. And, in 1803, in the Marbury vs Madison decision, the power to "interpret" the Constitution was, in effect, claimed by the United States Supreme Court.

Well, to clarify, although the Constitution can reasonaby be called a "living, breathing document" due to the fact that it is amendable, that amendment process is specific - outlined in Article 5. It is not automatic due to the advance of time; There is no constitutional authority for the Judiciary to "interpret"; "original intent" is not written into the Constitution, it's simply a claim being used for justification to violate it.

The US Constitution is not a set of guidelines, it is written law. It was agreed to and signed by the founders. Nowhere does it state or imply that it is a set of rules only to be used as a guide for legislation. Although many use the argument to justify legislation based on "common sense" or necessity, Article 6 of the Constitution states explicitly that the document is the "Supreme law of the land". The statement encompasses legislation to be passed in the future, with the condition that it must comply with the Constitution:

Regarding the amendment issue, the process is dictated in Article 5 of the Constitution. Only "we the people" can amend the Constitution, by approval of three-fourths of all state legislatures or state Constitutional Conventions. If there is a need for change or clarification, due to modern technology or "necessity", that need is covered in the Constitution - it has not been left unaddressed. We are allowed to make changes any time we want. If there is a lack of understanding due to archaic terminolgy used in the original drafting of the Constitution, amend it. There is no need to apply "original intent" to the issue. There is no need for the Judiciary to "interpret" the true meaning. There is no need for Congress to legislate the issue due to urgency - they can propose an amendment and if it is truly that urgent, I'm sure we can rely on our state legislatures to approve it. By allowing these abuses, we are ceding our protections under the Constitution to whatever government officials decide those protections are.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" - U S Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2

Again, let's be perfectly clear about the content of this statement. It does not say "Laws... which shall be made" - stop. It doesn't say "all Treaties made" - stop. It says "This Constitution, and the Laws... which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" - and I emphasize "in Pursuance thereof" - and "all Treaties made...under the Authority of the United States" - authority which is delegated by the Constitution - "shall be the supreme Law of the Land". All laws and treaties made must comply with the U S Constitution. There is no blanket authority from the Constitution to simply pass legislation or sign treaties.