The Judiciary Is Restrained By The Constitution

Jay Reding provides a bit of history for those who would pooh-pooh the idea the Congresspersons should be concerned with the US Constitution and would instead claim that such concerns are entirely the purview of the courts:

[T]he judiciary is part of three co-equal branches of government. The judiciary isn’t a super-legislature. It can’t make executive decisions. Its primary purpose is to provide a check on the other two branches. Many on the left don’t understand why the judiciary was supposed to be the “least dangerous branch” of government. They don’t understand the concept that the role of a judge is a limited one, and is sharply and absolutely proscribed by constitutional limits. They see the courts as instruments of social change, and that’s not the way the courts are intended to function.

What is a hurricane but uncontrolled (from our perspective) power? A flood, a forest fire, a nutcase with a neutron bomb–each of these is uncontrolled, unconstrained power. Uncontrolled power is a fearful thing.

That is why the nature of our tripartite federal government is essential. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are necessary to keep each other honest, as it were. If they fail in their historical (yea, Constitutional) roles, then we are in dire straits, indeed.