As seen in the illegal wiretapping why must laws be ruled unconstitutional after they have been instituted?

Question

Whereas a high priority case like illegal wiretapping was ruled illegal quickly many times it takes years for laws to navigate the judicial system. Meanwhile unconstitutional laws are in full force and effect. Wouldn't it be more advantageous (for the people) for laws to be approved through a judicial process before they effect the populace? There could even be a system set in place for laws that are more critical to hit a fast track and be ruled on quicker then others. If the supreme court verified the laws before being instituted there would be less process because it would illiminate the need for people to challenge and appeal through many minor courts before being heard at the supreme level.
Likewise the people should be able to "veto" a judges ruling by say 3/4 vote of states. Makes sense to me...what about you?

Answer 1

A law or executive order is presumed valid unless it is preempted by another law or conflicts with the constitution.

And with a few exceptions, it's against the constitution to ask the court for an advisory opinion as to whether a law is valid or not. That derives from the Case-or-Controversy clause of Article III, which limits court review to those cases where an actual current injury or legal controversy exists.

So, until the law is in place, and causes some identifiable personal harm, nobody has the standing required to challenge the law. Which also prevents the type of advisory opinions you mention, at least in federal court. State courts may work differently.

The concept of veto-ing a judge's decision misses the entire process of legislative versus judicial (common) law. For any interpretation of a statute (not the constitution), the legislature can override the court by changing the enacted law.

To override a constitutional interpretation requires amending the constitution. Which can be done by 3/4 of the states, as described in Article V.

Answer 2

Only one problem...there are thousands of bills that make it through Congress and into law each year at the State and Federal level. The courts do not have the capability to review every single one.

The ones that are on the edge of being constitutional are usually pushed through the Judicial system quickly once challenged. So I think the current system that's in place is the best compromise.

Remember that although it was a couple years in this case, the public was not made aware until recently. In addition, the President has certain authorities under the Consitution to protect U.S. Citizens. This is a loose interpretation that's being challenged right now.

Answer 3

The illegal wiretapping is not a law. It is a violation of the law. This ruling by a federal judge simply states that under the laws and protections as stated in the Constitution. There is none to justify it and therefore the wiretapping is unconstitutional.

Answer 4

Remember in Civics class when your teacher talked about "check and balances". The judicial branch has the power to "check" the legislative branch. Thus, the court can declare a law unconsititional. However, the legislative branch can "check" the judicial branch by either rewriting the law to agree with the constitution or pass an amendment to the constitution.

Answer 5

Yeah, that kind of makes sense.

In regard to the illegal tapping though-I actually DO believe it is illegal. I mean this Administration cannot even secure our borders; how many Americans actually turn out to be terrorists?

Answer 6

It's a good idea, but the only way to make it happen would be to change the constitution, and then we can do all sorts of crazy things...

Then again, we're already doing all sorts of crazy things...

Answer 7

our laws are being used against us the ACLU are nothing but a bunch of christian hunters.