Happy Tax Day!

[Radar]

The Constitution (the one you claim you love so well) granted the judicial branch the job of interpreting the law.

No it didn't. Nowhere in the constitution's description of the powers and duties of the judiciary is the word "interpret" mentioned. Why is that? Because that's not their job. The constitution doesn't require interpretation. It's not written in Swahili, it's written in simple English. It means EXACTLY what it says; no more, no less.

It's all well and good to try to change the supreme court's mind, but I think there has to be a final arbiter of interpretation. Otherwise, there is no rule of law at all!

The final arbiter is the constitution itself. The supreme court doesn't define it or interpret it. They answer to it just like all other parts of government.

You say they "conspire to perpetuate", but obviously, what you really mean is that the court has repeatedly interpreted that the 16th is the valid law of the land* -- and you disagree.

No, what I mean is what I said; just like the constitution. And the constitution also says it takes 3/4 of all states to pass an amendment which didn't happen with the 16th amendment and the supreme court has no authority to ignore that requirement.

Are you suggesting that individuals can't interpret the law as they see fit? Not even reinterpret what the Court system has already interpreted?

No, I'm saying it's not anyone's job to interpret the constitution. It doesn't require interpretation and isn't ambiguous. It's very clear in its meaning and the courts aren't granted the authority or power to do "interpretation" of the constitution.