On some points interpretation may be needed. On other points it's a stretch. At still other points maybe a stretch to breaking and beyond.
You may not care for literal text, but a lawful society depends on it. Governments just doing whatever they feel is best at the moment aren't generally very robust. There has to be restraint over a judiciary. A limit to how far they can stretch things. Opinions vary on what this limit is, but, back to the original point, some aspects of NSA data collection, from my point of view very clearly exceed this limit as embodied in the constitution.
Probably the real answer is we need an update. A 200 year old document might not be the best guide for modern times. But you can only have authorities claim it is day when it is really night for so long without people starting to suspect corruption. And I think that's where we are at. Sadly.
What if the removed justices sued and the judiciary hearing the case ruled that, in fact, Constitutional provisions be damned, the legislative branch may not remove justices.
Were that to happen, how could you argue that they are wrong?
You effectively can't, because "but the Constitution" is not a method of legal operation in the United States. At that point, you indeed do have a legitimate breakdown in governance. I expect such a situation would cause the kind of crisis that destroys a government.
(I'm not saying I am describing something that is good. I prefer to live in the world of the descriptive when it comes to legal matters, rather than the prescriptive. There are things I want very much to see changed--but I recognize that the process that exists isn't going away.)
The Constitution doesn't say it works this way, and that was the document that was voted on by the representatives of the people. So whoever it was that decided it actually works a totally different way, why should I care what they think?
You may not care for literal text, but a lawful society depends on it. Governments just doing whatever they feel is best at the moment aren't generally very robust. There has to be restraint over a judiciary. A limit to how far they can stretch things. Opinions vary on what this limit is, but, back to the original point, some aspects of NSA data collection, from my point of view very clearly exceed this limit as embodied in the constitution.
Probably the real answer is we need an update. A 200 year old document might not be the best guide for modern times. But you can only have authorities claim it is day when it is really night for so long without people starting to suspect corruption. And I think that's where we are at. Sadly.