So, it's okay if Obama spies on the American people

[Deep13]

89. Art. III says no such thing.

The power of judicial review was created in the case of Marbury vs. Madison when C.J. Marshall decided that Fed. courts have the right to determine the constitutionality of Fed. laws. So, you were worried about circular reasoning?

It's not so much that I am against judicial review for Constitutional compliance, but that in recent years it has become pretty obvious that SCOTUS is more of a mini-legislature than an impartial court, invalidating laws that conflict with its own agenda and calling them unconstitutional. One thing that is apparent is that SCOTUS and the legal profession generally misread the Constitution because they are reading 21st c. values and norms into a document written for the 18th c.

It is true that the whole standing issue comes from Art. III (cases in controversy--no hypothetical matters). This shows that the whole pass-what-we-want-and-let-the-court-figure-it-out is the wrong approach. Due to standing requirements, much questionable law will never be litigated. So it is not enough for the Congress or POTUS to assume something is legitimate until a court says otherwise. All three branches have an affirmative duty to confine themselves to their enumerated powers. Considering how broad those powers are, it really should not be a problem to live within the letter of the law.