Can States Interpret the constitution?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ihopehefails, Jan 11, 2010.

  1. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I have read the section of the constitution that establishes the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and it list the times that the federal judiciary is EXTENDED to the federal government. The term EXTENDED implies that powers already existing are being expanded and leaving any of the old powers intact and under the articles of confederation states had the right to interpret the constitution on their own. It seems to me by using the word extended that it is implying that powers already existing in the state judiciaries are being extended to the federal judiciary.
     
  2. PLYMCO_PILGRIM
    Offline

    PLYMCO_PILGRIM Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17,416
    Thanks Received:
    2,855
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    America's Home Town
    Ratings:
    +2,863
    Give me links to the specific sections you are talking about please.
     
  3. Bill O'Olberman
    Offline

    Bill O'Olberman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    818
    Thanks Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +124
    States do have there own laws and constitutions which governs them. So naturally state courts must rule accordingly. However, the federal judiciary, Supreme Court of the United States, would be the highest appellate court and has the authority over any state judiciary. Not all court cases originate in federal courts.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    Article III Section 2
     
  5. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I'll have to read more into that but I it seems that if is saying "extends" vs "handed over to" it implies a dual system for interpreting the constitution.
     
  6. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    The states have a duty to interpret the Constitution.
     
  7. Bill O'Olberman
    Offline

    Bill O'Olberman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    818
    Thanks Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +124
    As Kevin_Kennedy said, "the states have a duty to interpret the Constitution." However, as is evident not everyone interprets the Constitution the same way. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case from a State Supreme Court and overturns their decision, SCOTUS decision is the "correct" interpretation of the Consitution. Also, as per Article VI of the Constitution, The Supremecy Clause, the U.S. Consitution and laws passed by Congress are supreme to the laws of the states. So any state consitution or law repugnant to the U.S. Consititution should be deemed unconstitutional.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2010
  8. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    It says laws pursuent to which is a conditional that suggest that they must be constitutional first. Here is one thing I would like to add. If state courts could interpret the constitution then, as I believe they do, there power would be limited to their judicial power over the state government itself so it may not prohibit the federal government from doing anything.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2010
  9. Bill O'Olberman
    Offline

    Bill O'Olberman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    818
    Thanks Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +124
    Well if a state action or law is being challanged because of an unconsitutional federal law, then a federal court would rule federal law unconsitutional.
     
  10. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    OK. Lets say that this is true and a state finds a federal law unconstitutional by the constitution itself. That state judiciary orders the state government to strike down all laws that assist or support the federally uncosntitutional law. Is the federal government going to force the state to re-instate those laws?
     

Share This Page