[s1k3s]

So basically it's the same as here, the supreme court (which is appointed, not elected) has power over elected officials?

(Because they can decide what is constitutional or not)

Edit: I have more questions but for some reason I can't reply to your replies :(

[edmundsauto]

The US Supreme Court can decide what is constitutional, and Congress can amend the constitution that is the basis for the USSC decision (with 2/3 vote).

With the current makeup of Congress, it is unlikely so the USSC holds significantly more effective power than if it had a functioning Congress.

[kelnos]

US Congress cannot amend the constitution. State legislatures must ratify constitutional amendments.

The two-thirds threshold you mention is for Congress to propose amendments.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the supreme court (which is appointed, not elected) has power over elected officials?

In a well-designed system, both have power over each other. That is certainly true in the United States.

[kelnos]

Right. But the elected officials can vote to remove members of the supreme court (or federal judges in general), though the bar for doing so is set very high. And the supreme court can't remove elected officials. So the supreme court's power over elected officials is not absolute.

The idea in US constitutional law is one of balance: we have three branches of government, and each are granted powers that can act as a check on the powers of the others. It's far from perfect in practice, but the intent is good, I think.

[pbhjpbhj]

>I have more questions but [...]

There's throttling to prevent rapid back-and-forth commenting as that can devolve somewhat; might be that. Try clicking the "X minutes ago".