First Thoughts in Constitutional Law?

I just bought a Constitutional Law case book to brush up on my Constitutional Law. The first quote in the book was from Bishop Hoadly in a sermon to the King in 1717. "Whoever hath an absolute authority to interpret any written or spoken laws, it is he who is truly the lawgiver, to all intents and purposes, and not the person who first spoke or wrote them." While this may ultimately be a true prophesy, only a corrupt man would actually seek to fulfill this prophesy at the corruption of the original written or spoken word. It is a shame this is the first thought put before a law student on the matter of Constitutional Law.

It appears that the case under consideration in the case book, Marbury v. Madison, is in accord with my view.

From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of the courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!