Judges are a necessary part of the process in applying and interpreting the Constitution.
If Judges do not use and apply the rules laid down in the Constitution, it means nothing. to do that, a judge must determine how the constitution applies to the specific issues in the case being considered.
This philosophy is known as judicial restraint or strict constructionism. It argues that judges should limit their interpretation of the Constitution to its text and original intent, intervening in the actions of the elected branches only when there is a clear violation of these principles.
it provided the framework for popular sovereignty
Judges, are paid public servants and are paid salaries.
Yes. Contrary to popular opinion, judges do not make laws.
Judges are appointed by the President then confirmed by the Senate in accordance with Article II of the United States Constitution.
An example of how Hamilton's ideas were expressed in the Constitution is that federal judges were given lifetime terms.Federal judges were given lifetime terms.
The Judges.
The supreme court
In my opinion, the answer is yes. First, it was unconstitutional for the legistlature to ammend the constitution on a deceptive short title ballot. Second, all the ballots have been lost except for the last two. But it just seems obvious that Power Corrupts and absolutle power corrupts absolutely. Instead of the checks and balances that the constitution originally provide the legislature has delegated the power to discipline judges to the judges. It should seem obvious that this is a scenario that invites abuse and corruption at the expense of the general public. see www.judgeourcourts.com
The process in which judges are appointed to High Court is called The Appointments Clause in the Constitution.
Congress doesn't clarify the constitution. They make laws. It is the Supreme Court that uses the constitution to interpret laws. There are judges who believe in strict interpretation of the constitution and they try to follow the constitution written as the founding fathers meant it to be made. Then, there are those who believe that there should be a looser interpretation because 200 years ago there was a different world than today.
narrow interpretation is the in between interpretation of the judges of the supreme court. In a narrow interpretation the judges fallow what is on the constitution but also their ideas.