Former justice Stevens predicts cracks in Citizens United decision

[rhett o rick]

12. I believe the citizens are the ultimate deciders.

They can remove Congress members and the President fairly easily if the citizens think they are passing unconstitutional laws. And the laws can be changed. But if the SCOTUS establishes a law (interprets) then the citizens are pretty much helpless. Constitutional amendments are very difficult to get passes. And the hands of the President and Congress are tied.

As far as "patently unconstitutional", there really isnt such a thing. Constitutionality (since Marshall) is determined by the SCOTUS and can change as Citizens United proved. They reversed precedent.

John Marshall (and his court) took it upon himself, without Congress and without the President and without the citizens, to assign the SCOTUS as the final arbiter. It isnt in the Constitution. So in my opinion, the decision to make the SCOTUS as final arbiter is unconstitutional.

And dont think the Founders hadnt thought of this. They purposely restricted the SCOTUS very severly.