The Living Constitution Another Liberal/ Progressive Lie. Rule by unelected Judges.

Sir Edward Coke an English judge about 1600 made the case that the duty of the judge was to decide which laws were valid and which were not.(Vol 2 page 121 History of the English Speaking People) Parliament REJECTED that as it would make judges who were not elected, the ultimate lawgivers of the State.Our Constitution is built upon the idea that the PEOPLE create their laws and change them as they see fit. The Constitution,for example, can be amended but by the Congress and people not the Courts.

Justice John Marshall applied Coke's idea and used it to decide a case (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review ...)
Marshall decided that case in the government's favor by saying that the Court has the power to decide WHAT a law means and if a law is  Constitutional and order what changes  are to  made to that law if , the judge, rules that the law was unconstitutional and merits redress.

In other words...the Court takes upon itself the power of Congress to make and repeal law!!!!!

There is NOTHINGTING in the Constitution that gives the Judges that power.
 It has become legal precedent.
Meaning that can be done as lawful which in the past has been accepted by the courts as lawful.

So the people vote to make English the legal language of Cali, a right of lawmaking given them in the State Constitution and 3 judges reject the votes of millions as unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution. In another case Dred Scott, the Court took the right of citizenship from a whole group ( African Americans) it took the 13, 14 and 15th Amendments to fix that.
It upon this power of judicial review that the concept of the "Living Constitution" is based on.
   To be continued.....