I completely agree with this sentiment; however what I disagree with is that the President or Congress needs to implement jurisdiction to a group in order whose duty is to decipher Constitutional laws. My biggest reason against it is that a decision like that in itself runs counter to the Constitution, by giving the President or Congress the express authority to appoint a group or individual whose sole duty is to determine the Constitutionality of a law can and always will be politicized thus the only people who would be given the position(s) would be those who agree with their appointee.

We do have a decent system as it stands by utilizing the Supreme Court but that too still leaves a lot of open debate. The refreshing aspect of not having an appointed group in our government, such as the ACLU, is that the ACLU requires private funding to function and it acquires these funds by honestly analyzing laws that are passed which are truly unconstitutional and don’t represent the will of the American people. When they function in an unbiased manner, such as the way they do, they’re rewarded through funding, and it’s groups such as the ACLU, the Tenth Amendment Center, and the National Association for Gun Rights that enable us to truly assess the Constitutionality of major laws which are passed in America and fight them in the Supreme Court. Now, I don’t agree that the Supreme Court holds the last word on what is or is not Constitutional in regard to our laws and policies, but