"The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional". This is not explicitly spelled out in the constitution.
Actually, I would argue that clearly it is:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, . . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States . . .
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
The language makes quite clear that the Constitution and the laws of Congress are the ultimate law of the land, and the Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial arbiter of all cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of the US. I'm not sure how they could have been any more explicit. Marbury v. Madison just made it official. At any rate, that has been the accepted law of the land for over 200 years now, so Ryan saying he thinks it shouldn't be that way and that Congress should be able to decide this type of issue is extremely troubling. Because it either means he doesn't really have any understanding of Constitutional Law, or he is a subversive who wants to upend our system of government. Either way, he is certainly not the strict Constitutionalist he pretends to be.
As to whether the Courts have been out of step or have made decisions which many would disagree with . . . well, of course they have. No system is perfect. And the prevailing thoughts and morals of one time don't necessarily apply in a different time. Do you honestly think having Congress decide Constitutional issues would be a better way to go? That would be a disaster!
Now, I did not hear Ryan say he wanted the Supreme court to be powerless.
Really? I heard him say: "We don't think that unelected judges should make this decision" referring to a decision on an issue of Constitutionality of Laws. If you take away the Supreme Court's role of determining Constitutionality of Laws, you do render them completely powerless to the whims of Congress. I think you are intentionally playing down the significance of his remarks.
He expressed a disagreement with their decisions with regards to abortion and his belief that it should be a legislative decision with the backing of the electorate. That means you either craft a bill that will withstand judicial scrutiny . . .
No, that isn't what he said. He said that there should be
no judicial scrutiny for this type of issue. That it should be solely up to Congress, or as he quaintly put it, "that people through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination." Calling it a choice by the people through the democratic process sounds pretty but doesn't change the fact that he is saying the Supreme Court should be denied judicial review of this issue and it should be solely decided by Congress. What part of "We don't think that unelected judges should make this decision" did you not understand? Seems pretty clear to me that he is calling for the Court to have no judicial review of this issue.
or you move on to article V and try to amend the constitution. Personally I think neither of these changes is very likely and certainly not achievable from a near powerless vice president's position (ie not scary).
I am not scared by the fact that he may not be able to accomplish this from the Vice President's position. I am scared that a man who thinks like this would be a heartbeat away from the President's position. We already had a cowboy who ignored the Constitution in that office, and it didn't go so well for our nation.
Scary is a nuclear armed Iran.
Really? Doesn't scare me too much. I suppose you were deathly scared of Saddam Hussein's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" too? Oh, until we invaded them and found out they really didn't have any. Oops. We have had similar scares in the past about this or that rogue country getting Nukes. In the fifties it was Russia and China. That didn't turn out near as bad as the doomsday predictions, did it? I am not saying that we should ignore Iran completely, but I think we can let Israel do some of the heavy lifting there as they are the ones most threatened by them. And their intelligence services can probably run rings around ours anyway.
Regarding Iran, I would love to hear some conservatives admit that part of the reason Iran is ascending in power in the region and is therefore a bigger thorn in our side, is because the Bush administration foolishly and recklessly went to war in Iraq, thereby taking down one of the chief barriers to Iran's ascendancy in the region and totally throwing off the entire balance of power in the region. Had we not engaged in that stupid, costly war, we would probably not even be discussing Iran and nuclear weapons right now. This is exactly why leadership matters, and trying to rule the world like a bull in a china shop simply doesn't work.
anyway - My brother brought to my attention that it was in fact, George W. Bush that started the bailout with 13 billion in emergency funds.... something Congress wouldn't pass -- and something republicans didn't want (big government...are you kidding me??). 
