dm.hans32

So, because the Supreme court says it's ok makes it constitutional? They don't get to decide the constitution, fortunately. 

Actually, interpreting the Constitution is kind of their job.

Who made that up? The constitution is a blanket law, it's not meant to be bent. 

Are these coming from the same places that teach the US is a democracy? I have no intention on arguing over this further. If you want to continue believing the government can undermine the constitution, it doesn't concern me, Ill be out of this country soon anyway.

Actually, the sources that say that judges interpret the law are sources that say that the US is a federal republic. Which it is.

I'm not saying something controversial here. Interpreting laws is what judges do. Above the trial level, they don't even consider evidence. All they do is interpret the law to see how it applies to the situation. That will be the case in every country.

If you say that the Supreme Court shouldn't interpret the Constitution, you go against the entire history of American government. That is a fact.

Oh, and by the way: If you reject constitutional interpretation, then your 4th amendment rights have absolutely no meaning to the New York state legal system. The Bill of Rights is only binding on the federal government, originally. It took Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th amendment to say that states have to pay attention to the whole Bill of Rights (the 14th Amendment explicitly requires due process and equal protection, but due process is a clause in the 5th Amendment - extending it to the whole Bill of Rights is actually done on a right-by-right basis, and it doesn't apply to all of them).