The conceit is that it’s a written contract between the citizenry, the state governments, and the federal government that sets out what each is and isn’t allowe

The conceit is that it’s a written contract between the citizenry, the state governments, and the federal government that sets out what each is and isn’t allowed to do. It has provisions to be altered by the parties should it be found wanting which have been successfully used several times, despite requiring a supermajority. The idea is to establish the rules of the political game by consensus, as a stabilizing influence on a government that can have its membership completely replaced every 6 years. Like any other contract, when there’s a dispute, the first thing to look at is what was actually agreed upon and then try to map that onto whatever situation you find yourself in. Generally, the courts in the US view themselves as arbitrators: their job is to determine how the text of the law (including the Constitution) maps onto the many messy edge cases that come up in real life in the fairest way they can. That means, in part, making determinations consistently between various cases; this is where case law gets its authority. In theory, political and moral concerns are not in the purview of the courts, but instead are be encoded in the written laws they interpret. Modern legal opinions need the endorsement of enough legislators to be enshrined at the appopriate level of law before they can be enforced; it makes for slow progress, but hopefully avoids a lot of wrong turns.