Misunderstanding the Preamble to the Constitution

Hugh,

I honestly am not sure what you are saying here. Is it that the Supreme Court should not be the rulers of what is and is not Constitutional? Or, is it a question of "strict construction?" If it is the former, then I would say that the separation of powers was and is a very good idea. Arguments between the legislative and executive branches have been occurring since the beginning of our Nation's union. Having a referee(s) to decide controversies and questions of what the Constitution says,and to settle disputes between the 2 branches , are by definition subjective and open to interpretation.

The Marbury ruling that you refer to is in fact very instructive. Before this ruling, it was still a matter of conjecture as to exactly what the role of the judiciary actually was. Justice Marshall settled that question, and the argument has been ongoing ever since. Why establish a Supreme Court, if it has no power to say what the law is or is not? 

Strict construction or "Original Intent", in my opinion is problematic. The founders and the ratification of the Constitution went through rigorous debate, and differing points of view were expressed and part of the compromises made in the final document. There was not total agreement among the Framers, which in my view leaves room for discussion and interpretation.

Here is an excerpt from Hamiltion's Feralist 78 on the judiciary:If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[12] 

Or, did I miss you point completely? If we're talking about the 10th Amendment and the "states rights" implications therein, let me know and I'll go there as well.

PS: I need some pygmy ponies for my trip. Can you help? lol

"...randomly enforced."

Burnt Weeny Sandwich or Weasels Ripped My Flesh......you decide.