As an American I can't say either interpretation is wrong. I'm torn as well. The multi-branch system makes most sense to me, and I defer to the founders because they had experience with European law being nothing but a sham decoration to legitimize state actions, but there are a lot of lacks of failsafes in our government structure - possibly because they recognized that you can't account for everything in a written document, and they believed if things ever got out of hand The People would simply have another revolt and redo it.

In this particular example, you're supposed to have social pressure, superior judiciary censure, and finally the threat of impeachment from the legislature when judges start going crazy. It's not working and hasn't for a long time. No matter what anyone believes, if there is ever a true "revolution" it must include the courts and case law.

Oh I should probably also point out (you may be aware) that judicial review of the law itself was not even meant to be in the purview of the judiciary. They granted it to themselves in Marbury v. Madison.

As an American I can't say either interpretation is wrong. I'm torn as well. The multi-branch system makes most sense to me, and I defer to the founders because they had experience with European law being nothing but a sham decoration to legitimize state actions, but there are a lot of lacks of failsafes in our government structure - possibly because they recognized that you can't account for everything in a written document, and they believed if things ever got out of hand The People would simply have another revolt and redo it.

In this particular example, you're supposed to have social pressure, superior judiciary censure, and finally the threat of impeachment from the legislature when judges start going crazy. It's not working and hasn't for a long time.

Oh I should probably also point out (you may be aware) that judicial review of the law itself was not even meant to be in the purview of the judiciary. They granted it to themselves in Marbury v. Madison.

As an American I can't say either interpretation is wrong. I'm torn as well. The multi-branch system makes most sense to me, and I defer to the founders because they had experience with European law being nothing but a sham decoration to legitimize state actions, but there are a lot of lacks of failsafes in our government structure - possibly because they recognized that you can't account for everything in a written document, and they believed if things ever got out of hand The People would simply have another revolt and redo it.

In this particular example, you're supposed to have social pressure, superior judiciary censure, and finally the threat of impeachment from the legislature when judges start going crazy. It's not working and hasn't for a long time.