Counter mine? In your dreams, perhaps.<quoted text>
two points to counter yours:
1) the People can, thru various Amend processes, determine what SHALL be Constitutional, period. the rest is pure speculation and INTERPRETATION.... by imperfect humans with imperfect opinions.
to believe that the SC has NEVER rendered either a biased or wrong opinion is, based on OTHER than PURE Constitutional words or past, stricter interpretations, is both ludicrous and dangerous and stupid.
2) the SC itself decides WHICH cases it shall hear. if IT decides an issue is somehow 'beneath' ITS attention, then what?
therefore, the SC is NOT the final arbitrator of WHAT is Const'l and what is NOT.
the pols in DC are NOT the final authority. at present we ARE two States away from convening a Second Constitutional Convention... the ULTIMATE middle finger the States and People can give the FG!
thank the Founders for THEIR foresight in recognizing the eventual tyranny of the Federal Government. thank THEM for the Second AND Tenth Amendments and the ability for the States and People to circumvent and THWART the onerous Central Government THEY created.
one day, maybe sooner than any of us think, you will THANK those they took the Oath AND KEPT IT (they are NOT the 'elected' ones, either).
hurry, hurry, hurry...
While it's true that the Constitution can be amended to determine what is/is not constitutional, that is precisely what is in place at this very moment, i.e., the Bill of Rights.
Legal decisions are based on legal precedent, minimizing interpretation and eliminating speculation. Do Justices make mistakes/bad decisions? Yes, of course; but the Supreme Ct has been known to overturn their own previous decisions. It doesn't happen often, though.
Via certiorari and original jurisdiction, the Supreme Ct hears cases. If it chooses to not hear a case, that means that the lower court's decision if final, legal and binding (and ergo, constitutional).
A second Constitutional Convention? Wake us when it happens