are there any states that allow broad powers to the supreme court?
<p>Are there any states where judges have broad powers to interpret the constitution to the point of even allowing them to exceed clear language and legislative intent ?</p>

<p>The United States would be one such country. I'm sure it is not the only one.</p>
<p>In the case of countries with constitutional courts there is basically no one to second guess their interpretations which is also true when the apex court in a country provides an opinion. Since no one can overrule many of these courts, they are allowed to do what they want.</p>

<p>Supreme Courts are generally granted the power to decide cases and issue orders (e.g. Canada's <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-26/FullText.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Supreme Court Act</em></a>). But that power is not granted on the condition that the judges adhere to a particular legal theory guiding their decision-making.</p>
<p>Theories of judicial decision-making, such faithfulness to plain language, or attempts to ascertain legislative intent, are often not self-consciously deployed during their birth. The judges just <em>decide</em>. It is only after reflection on a series of cases, maybe by the judges themselves, maybe by external observers, that theories of decision-making become clearer and can be expressed as you have done so. See generally, Jeremy Kessler &amp; David Pozen, &quot;<a href="https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/603/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Working Themselves Impure: A Life Cycle Theory of Legal Theories</a>&quot;, 83 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1819 (2016), particularly pages 1835–38.</p>
<p>At a less abstract level, not all constitutional law is based in written text or sourced in the legislature. Canada's Constitution, for example, contains unwritten unconstitutional principles: &quot;[b]ehind the written word is an historical lineage stretching back through the ages.&quot; See <em>Reference re Secession of Quebec</em>, <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/1fqr3#par49" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 at paras. 49-54</a>.</p>

constitutional-law