Amazon.com Widgets

Should Congress have the power to interpret the Constitution?

  • Congress Already Has That Power

    Every time a law is passed, Congress assumes it is constitutional. So, in that respect, it already has the power to interpret and divine the will of the founding document. However, that doesn't mean that power trumps anything. The Supreme Court can knock down any law Congress passes. It's reason why there power is separated within the federal government.

    Posted by: rpr
  • Someone has too!

    Congress is supposed to be responsible for making laws that are not against the Constitution. There are some state and federal officers who feel they have a right to violate other people's rights due to their own agenda. I believe that big corporations and big business's lobbyist have a lot to do with trying to bend the Constitution so they can make money!

  • If not, who then?

    Obviously someone has to take care of the constitution, if not the government of the United States will be a total catastrophe. They fought for their liberty so it's impossible that Britain will take them back. Britain the most strongest army back then got defeated by colonists, so if Colonists wanted to go back to British they will kill the colonists.

  • Congress wrote the Constitution, it should be able to set how it is interpreted

    The one missing piece to the Constitution is a defining clause. There should be a clause outlining how it should be interpreted. Something to the effect of: "In all matters of interpretation and application of the Constitution of the United States of America, clear preference must be given to the original intent. When the original intent can not be determined, preference must be given to individual liberty." This should clear up 90%+ of the issues.

  • No, congress should not interpret constitution

    Congress is going to try to harm the constitutional They are going to try to cut the constitution that we need to be free. I think the supreme court is the one who needs to interpret the constitution. Congress would put too much power that creates new laws. The supreme court is the one who can interpret the constitution

  • No they should not have that power

    The Congress should not have power to interpret the Constitution because they are going to try to cut something out of the Constitution that we need to be free. The Constitution is what we need to be free and what is protecting us from people to take out are equal rights. The Congress in only trying to take that away for us so we can be under their control . The Congress are pushing down our thought and ideas and making us use what they come up with but don't know if we like it or not. Really the Congress is somewhat part of the Constitution and they work with them and they are going against them. That really putting more power into a group that already has a lot of power and already makes laws. The laws they are making now are laws to make us not have the Constitution period.

  • These people exist SPECIFICALLY EXIST of the Constitution.

    Congress wouldn't even exist without the Constitution to back them. That they continue to impose their own opinions of what is Constitutional, typically through appeals to semantics, is despicable, and grounds for hostile reaction. No, Amendments and Articles are not to be "interpreted", Constitutions are meant to be absolute representations. If you want to change the constitution, you'll have to do so through the Constitutional process.

  • No, Congress should not have the power to interpret the Constitution.

    No, Congress should not have this power as it negates the checks and balances system on which our government was founded. Interpreting the Constitution is strictly the job of the judicial branch. If Congress could interpret the Constitution, that puts too much power in a group that already creates new laws.

  • No congress shouldn't have that power

    Because that would give congress way too much power than the other branches. It wouldn't be fair to the executive branch or the judicial branch. It would also give congress the power to create new laws or change the laws so that it might not be fair to some parts of the nation.

  • No because the

    Congress should base and propose laws and bills on their interpretation. However the official interpretation should be decided by the Supreme Court. Congressmen are not elected to interpret the law, but to propose laws. Giving congress this power is giving them more than other branches are given. This is not to say that branches shouldn't work together, though

  • No, that would nullify the Constitution.

    No, Congress should not have the power to interpret the Constitution, because that would have the effect of making the Constitution mean whatever the legislature wants it to mean at the time. In addition, many people in the legislature are not legally trained, and they would make decisions that are not grounded in law.

  • This should be left up to the US Supreme Court

    Congress should base and propose laws and bills on their interpretation. However the official interpretation should be decided by the Supreme Court. Congressmen are not elected to interpret the law, but to propose laws. Giving congress this power is giving them more than other branches are given. This is not to say that branches shouldn't work together, though.

  • No, Congress should not have the power to interpret the Constitution.

    No, Congress should not have this power as it negates the checks and balances system on which our government was founded. Interpreting the Constitution is strictly the job of the judicial branch. If Congress could interpret the Constitution, that puts too much power in a group that already creates new laws.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.