Some Everyday Constitutional Accountability Issues
"The Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech..."
Federal law cannot prohibit speech on its own, period. The "movie theatre" exception is derived from State CONST prohibitions on "irresponsible speech." However, the United States Code outlaws speech that questions the government as subversion/sedition/treason. Did the founders write specific rules in the constitution so future politicians can break them, so specifically badly and backwards? Isn't this simpler than we are being told?
US CONST Art VI P 2
"This constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Some schools teach that "nothing in the Constitution gives the Court" the power of constitutional review. However, the supremacy clause is discretionary power for just that. Ignoring the constitution enabled Justice Marshal to assert his own precedent of "judicial review" for this important power in Marbury v. Madison (1803).
Some Technical Constitutional Accountability Issues
US CONST Amd VIII
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
The only thing protected from suspension is the right to habeas corpus. The founders recognized the power to suspend specific laws during an invasion based on specific needs to respond, but as of right now, the federal government can abuse that power to ongoingly suspend any law because there aren't enough specifications. We have seen examples of "blanket" suspensions without correlation to a specific need being used to punish citizens, such as boundless plea-deal making. Likewise, should good evidence be punished when obtained illegally, or should violators be deterred?
1 U.S.C. 204(a)
'The matter set forth in the current laws of the United States and any supplements thereof establish the prima facie law of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force after that session.'
What you are looking at is a simplified version of a very technical detail for the rule of law. It basically says that judges must apply the law as written. Obviously, our lack of strict construction is a huge, ongoing crisis. Who enforces these laws on judges? Judges are responsible for punishing themselves through councils, so we are getting nowhere with a judiciary so unlike the checks & balances the founders designed. We were given rights for when government can't police itself for a reason. Should these details be more visible to us?