The Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality
The supreme court is the ultimate arbiter and there are no problems with that
The supreme court is the ultimate arbiter and there are problems but it is the best system possible
the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter its a problem, but there are ways to improve (explain)
I wasn't just picking on the second to pick on it, I just chose it because it's normally one that comes up in conversation regarding its ambiguity.
I, for one, DON'T think that everything should be completely subject to the whims of people who have been dead for 200 years, especially if those whims were NOT codified in the document that some are advocating jailing people for violating. The general principles of the Bill of Rights, I am firmly behind, but to insist they're closed to interpretation as society progresses is, to me, asinine.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.
Activism in terms of striking down laws is not a bad thing. Activism in terms of making new law is.
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
Andrew Jackson sure didn't think it's a good idea, but if not then the court is pretty well neutered, as it can't pass legislation on its own. Until the other 2 branches stop sucking so terribly, I think it's pretty well necessary that at least one branch of govt will at least attempt to uphold the constitution.
"Obamacare delenda est"
What you're thinking of is more like what Britain has, the concept of Parliamentary Supremacy. Parliament can do whatever it wants, and is only accountable to the voters.