You're more than welcome to get emotional about whatever you like. But, you are in the minority of popular opinion on this matter. Even among those informed enough to have looked into the concept, they appreciate that it is an implied power of the court (all the courts, btw, not just the supreme), it is a reasonable implication, and consider it congruent with the intentions of the drafters of the constitution.
When the courts are deciding that the Constitution does not apply, then they are absolutely, 100%, NOT going with what the drafters of the Constitution intended. The basics of how things work is: The people have all the power; the people choose to give up some power that is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Very simple fact: Any power not delegated to the feds is reserved for the people & states. Nowhere in the Constitution does it so much as imply that sections can be deemed, by the Federal Government, to not apply. There is nothing ambiguous about "Congress shall make no law...". There is no question about the definition of the word "abridge". Hence the 10th Amendment specifically stating that any power not given to the Feds IS NEVER THEIRS. Nobody gave the Feds the power to decide which speech is protected and which is not, because such a distinction is not made in the Constitution. (I left the judge argument behind because it was a bad choice for my point. The judicial powers, as I understand them, do include adjudicating the constitutionality of laws & actions because of Article III, Section 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution ..."
I'm not sure I follow your claim about it only applying with the supreme rulers of the land decide it does. Not to say that various leaders didn't overstep their bounds. An easy example is Lincoln suspending habeus corpus, and then ignoring the judicial review against him on the matter. But this merely requires improved enforcement of the checks and balances in the system.
Freedom of Speech is a very simple, clear cut example. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." It is that simple. No law does not mean "some laws", "some times", or "some situations". It doesn't matter what Common Law says, or tradition, or the church, or your own moral code. If some other duty or requirement of Congress puts them in a position where they need to curb speech, then the only Constitutional course of action is something else. Anything that does not violate the 1st Amendment. Absolutely any argument used to ignore one section can be used to justify anything else. The most popular argument used is as presented by Justice Holmes, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic". Sounds reasonable, right? Well, "The most stringent protection of due process would not protect a Japanese man walking free in 1942 and causing a panic" Now internment camps with no trial or crime committed are perfectly Constitutional as well. Oh, well, 50 years later we decided they're not, right? We paid reparations to them, so its all ok now, right? Except for the fact that it never would have happened if people didn't arbitrarily ignore other sections of the Constitution.
