Should we just ask the Judicial branch to write their own constitution?

[SuperDemocrat]

I'm just stuck with the idea that the constitution's meaning has been so warped by the federal judiciary with its multiple interpretations that their is no point of having a constitution anymore. We should just have a list of things neither the federal or state governments can do list and can't do that way we can actually just pass some laws that won't get struck down. It isn't exactly the way they were suppose to operate but for the sake of efficiency it would be easier to have the supreme court write down a list of things that can't be done so at least the people can predict what is acceptable to do in this country. It can be completely arbitrary for all I care and the reasons they won't allow states to do certain things can be as trivial as they didn't like it. This way each one of us will have some kind of set of rules we can apply to our own governments that we can use to tell them no before hand. The way it stands now their is no predictability in supreme court decisions other than the political leanings of its members. That alone should tell you how unhinged from the constitution the decision making process has become.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The judicial branch has always made case law and judicial review that guided law in the future. This is purely constitutional.

Of course you don't like it as you can't live in a wild west like society.

 

[Agit8r]