LAW: A COURT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A JURY | nationalsalvation.net
Interpreting the Constitution
I would not mind so much that courts interpret the Constitution if somebody would realize what, under the Common Law, a court IS.
A court is not a judge, it is a JURY.
Look at courts in earlier days and you will not see a group of nervous, cowed people in the jury box bowing and scraping before His Holiness, the Judge.
He presided. They did the questioning, even if they were peasants.
No judge would have DARED "instruct the jury" about what verdicts they were allowed to bring in.
It was a JURY Trail, a Trial By Jury.
With somebody presiding.
Magna Carta gave you the right to be judged by your Peers. There was not a word in it about glorified lawyers.
Back when pickpockets were hanged, it was juries who changed the British Constitution. Finally they simply refused to enforce such a pea-brained law.
In South Carolina, the nutty and unenforced regulations about liquor by the drink were finally repealed because juries refused to take them seriously.
Today the "Constitutional" interpretations are all in places where the Judicial Priests have their robes on, Appeals Courts, the College of Cardinals we call a Supreme Court.
If the Constitution does not make sense to the people of the United States, it states flatly that it is meaningless: "We the People of the United States ... and OUR Posterity."
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said, "To say that a law means what it says is a case of PERNICIOUS oversimplification"
I advocate perniciousness.