Can States Interpret the constitution?

[JakeStarkey]

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?

er... wait. State courts cannot rule a federal law unconstitutional. If a state wishes to challenge a federal statute they must do so in a federal court.

I believe that any judiciary has two things that establishes what it can do. The one is its jurisdiction which establishes its "zone" the other is its power witch establish what it has authority over.

The federal judiciary's jurisdiction has been extended to the federal constitution which suggest that states also have the same power since you are extending power to another government's judiciary. It is possible that state judicaires have the same jurisdiction as the federal judiciary but do not have the same power since state judicaries have no say over federal government actions. They do have power over state government and could order the state to not comply with the federal government in such matters.

What I am saying is that both court systems have the same jurisdiction over the constitution but both do not have the same power over the federal government.

Article III makes it quite clear that the SC has original and appelate jurisdiction over all matters constitutional.

No state court, obviously, has any such power.

 

[lawbuff]

Article III makes it quite clear that the SC has original and appelate jurisdiction over all matters constitutional.

No state court, obviously, has any such power.

If I may, the US SC does NOT have original jursdiction, except in a few matters, such as disputes between states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Article III makes it quite clear that the SC has either original or appelate jurisdiction over strike out all matters constitutional.

No state court, obviously, has any such power.

If I may, the US SC does NOT have original jursdiction, except in a few matters, such as disputes between states.

OK, I have correct above. Thank you.

 

[lawbuff]

Article III makes it quite clear that the SC has either original or appelate jurisdiction over strike out all matters constitutional.

No state court, obviously, has any such power.

If I may, the US SC does NOT have original jursdiction, except in a few matters, such as disputes between states.

OK, I have correct above. Thank you.

Honest mistake, obviously you read Article 3, and know it's contents. I misread or misquote at times too, it happens, no biggie.

 

[ihopehefails]

er... wait. State courts cannot rule a federal law unconstitutional. If a state wishes to challenge a federal statute they must do so in a federal court.

I believe that any judiciary has two things that establishes what it can do. The one is its jurisdiction which establishes its "zone" the other is its power witch establish what it has authority over.

The federal judiciary's jurisdiction has been extended to the federal constitution which suggest that states also have the same power since you are extending power to another government's judiciary. It is possible that state judicaires have the same jurisdiction as the federal judiciary but do not have the same power since state judicaries have no say over federal government actions. They do have power over state government and could order the state to not comply with the federal government in such matters.

What I am saying is that both court systems have the same jurisdiction over the constitution but both do not have the same power over the federal government.

Article III makes it quite clear that the SC has original and appelate jurisdiction over all matters constitutional.

No state court, obviously, has any such power.

Here is a hypothetical situation. Amendment 5 starts out with "No person..." and when you say "no person" you are not referring to any power of the state or federal government but any person anywhere has these protections stated in that amendment. If I get arrested on some state offense and they do something illegal that violates this amendment I would then tell the state judge that this violates the 5th amendment. The judge evaluates whether or not the state violated my 5th amendment rights.

Is this not the state interpreting the constitution?

 

[goldcatt]

I believe that any judiciary has two things that establishes what it can do. The one is its jurisdiction which establishes its "zone" the other is its power witch establish what it has authority over.

The federal judiciary's jurisdiction has been extended to the federal constitution which suggest that states also have the same power since you are extending power to another government's judiciary. It is possible that state judicaires have the same jurisdiction as the federal judiciary but do not have the same power since state judicaries have no say over federal government actions. They do have power over state government and could order the state to not comply with the federal government in such matters.

What I am saying is that both court systems have the same jurisdiction over the constitution but both do not have the same power over the federal government.

Article III makes it quite clear that the SC has original and appelate jurisdiction over all matters constitutional.

No state court, obviously, has any such power.

Here is a hypothetical situation. Amendment 5 starts out with "No person..." and when you say "no person" you are not referring to any power of the state or federal government but any person anywhere has these protections stated in that amendment. If I get arrested on some state offense and they do something illegal that violates this amendment I would then tell the state judge that this violates the 5th amendment. The judge evaluates whether or not the state violated my 5th amendment rights.

Is this not the state interpreting the constitution?

Not precisely, at least not at that level.

Trial courts, especially at the State level, have the duty to find fact and apply already existing law. Appellate courts have the duty to interpret law and apply it to fact. It's a subtle division of responsibility but an important one. And a major reason why precedent is so important in our justice system.

 

[lawbuff]

Here is a hypothetical situation. Amendment 5 starts out with "No person..." and when you say "no person" you are not referring to any power of the state or federal government but any person anywhere has these protections stated in that amendment. If I get arrested on some state offense and they do something illegal that violates this amendment I would then tell the state judge that this violates the 5th amendment. The judge evaluates whether or not the state violated my 5th amendment rights.

Is this not the state interpreting the constitution?

That is correct, the court would rule on your federal constitutional rights, as in Miranda, as there are many state court opinions on that topic also. Although as GC stated, precedent will rule, an inferior courts does not generally decide matters of First impression from case law that has exisited for many many decades.

 

[ihopehefails]

Here is a hypothetical situation. Amendment 5 starts out with "No person..." and when you say "no person" you are not referring to any power of the state or federal government but any person anywhere has these protections stated in that amendment. If I get arrested on some state offense and they do something illegal that violates this amendment I would then tell the state judge that this violates the 5th amendment. The judge evaluates whether or not the state violated my 5th amendment rights.

Is this not the state interpreting the constitution?

That is correct, the court would rule on your federal constitutional rights, as in Miranda, as there are many state court opinions on that topic also. Although as GC stated, precedent will rule, an inferior courts does not generally decide matters of First impression from case law that has exisited for many many decades.

Its really not a federal constitution. I use to think that but then it was pointed out that the constitution is the law of the land over all federal, state, and citizens. The Federal government does not have a constitution of its own since it is a creation of the constitution itself.

 

[lawbuff]

Its really not a federal constitution. I use to think that but then it was pointed out that the constitution is the law of the land over all federal, state, and citizens. The Federal government does not have a constitution of its own since it is a creation of the constitution itself.

I don't agree with that. What created the Continental Congress? That was long before the Original 7.

 

[goldcatt]

Here is a hypothetical situation. Amendment 5 starts out with "No person..." and when you say "no person" you are not referring to any power of the state or federal government but any person anywhere has these protections stated in that amendment. If I get arrested on some state offense and they do something illegal that violates this amendment I would then tell the state judge that this violates the 5th amendment. The judge evaluates whether or not the state violated my 5th amendment rights.

Is this not the state interpreting the constitution?

That is correct, the court would rule on your federal constitutional rights, as in Miranda, as there are many state court opinions on that topic also. Although as GC stated, precedent will rule, an inferior courts does not generally decide matters of First impression from case law that has exisited for many many decades.

Its really not a federal constitution. I use to think that but then it was pointed out that the constitution is the law of the land over all federal, state, and citizens. The Federal government does not have a constitution of its own since it is a creation of the constitution itself.

That is the purpose of a constitution in the first place - to create a government and delineate the structure, powers, and responsibilities of said government. To the citizens it grants certain protections from governmental power we think of as "rights", it does not create any responsibilities.

Of course it is a Federal constitution, whoever told you otherwise really does not understand the purpose of the document.

 

[ihopehefails]

er... wait. State courts cannot rule a federal law unconstitutional. If a state wishes to challenge a federal statute they must do so in a federal court.

I believe that any judiciary has two things that establishes what it can do. The one is its jurisdiction which establishes its "zone" the other is its power witch establish what it has authority over.

The federal judiciary's jurisdiction has been extended to the federal constitution which suggest that states also have the same power since you are extending power to another government's judiciary. It is possible that state judicaires have the same jurisdiction as the federal judiciary but do not have the same power since state judicaries have no say over federal government actions. They do have power over state government and could order the state to not comply with the federal government in such matters.

What I am saying is that both court systems have the same jurisdiction over the constitution but both do not have the same power over the federal government.

Article III makes it quite clear that the SC has original and appelate jurisdiction over all matters constitutional.

No state court, obviously, has any such power.

Any state court can rule against precedence if they want to but don't because they know it will get overturned. It is possible for a state court to consistently rule differently on constitutional matters and have the supreme court, where it would get appealed to, refuse to hear the case thereby leaving the state court's decision the final arbitrator of the US constitution for that particular case.

 

[ihopehefails]

Article III makes it quite clear that the SC has original and appelate jurisdiction over all matters constitutional.

No state court, obviously, has any such power.

Here is a hypothetical situation. Amendment 5 starts out with "No person..." and when you say "no person" you are not referring to any power of the state or federal government but any person anywhere has these protections stated in that amendment. If I get arrested on some state offense and they do something illegal that violates this amendment I would then tell the state judge that this violates the 5th amendment. The judge evaluates whether or not the state violated my 5th amendment rights.

Is this not the state interpreting the constitution?

Not precisely, at least not at that level.

Trial courts, especially at the State level, have the duty to find fact and apply already existing law. Appellate courts have the duty to interpret law and apply it to fact. It's a subtle division of responsibility but an important one. And a major reason why precedent is so important in our justice system.

The very idea that any state court can interpret the constitution and have its decision overturned by the supreme court itself implies that state judiciaries and federal judiciaries are not completely separate spheres but two complete spheres that occupy the same space.

 

[ihopehefails]

Its really not a federal constitution. I use to think that but then it was pointed out that the constitution is the law of the land over all federal, state, and citizens. The Federal government does not have a constitution of its own since it is a creation of the constitution itself.

I don't agree with that. What created the Continental Congress? That was long before the Original 7.

I believe it was the states themselves coming together to create a unifying document but the fact that the constitution, unlike state constitutions, intermingles with so many other governments and its citizens it makes it a document that establishes the power of all governments within it and that includes itself.

 

[ihopehefails]

That is correct, the court would rule on your federal constitutional rights, as in Miranda, as there are many state court opinions on that topic also. Although as GC stated, precedent will rule, an inferior courts does not generally decide matters of First impression from case law that has exisited for many many decades.

Its really not a federal constitution. I use to think that but then it was pointed out that the constitution is the law of the land over all federal, state, and citizens. The Federal government does not have a constitution of its own since it is a creation of the constitution itself.

That is the purpose of a constitution in the first place - to create a government and delineate the structure, powers, and responsibilities of said government. To the citizens it grants certain protections from governmental power we think of as "rights", it does not create any responsibilities.

Of course it is a Federal constitution, whoever told you otherwise really does not understand the purpose of the document.

The constitution is just a bunch of laws and it is the law of the land. It is possible for the constitution to say "All citizens must stop drinking" and for it to be enforced just like any other law but it also establishes laws for the federal and state governments as well and it is supreme to them as well. This makes it something that can be used against the government and that same government can use it against the citizens. This means that we are all on equal footing with respect to the constitution and that is that we are all subject to it no matter if we are citizen, state, or federal government.

I think the founders were quite brilliant in establishing it as the law of the land because if I have to obey the laws the constitution establishes for me in it then so does the government itself which makes the government my equal no matter if it is local, state, or federal.

 

[goldcatt]

Its really not a federal constitution. I use to think that but then it was pointed out that the constitution is the law of the land over all federal, state, and citizens. The Federal government does not have a constitution of its own since it is a creation of the constitution itself.

That is the purpose of a constitution in the first place - to create a government and delineate the structure, powers, and responsibilities of said government. To the citizens it grants certain protections from governmental power we think of as "rights", it does not create any responsibilities.

Of course it is a Federal constitution, whoever told you otherwise really does not understand the purpose of the document.

The constitution is just a bunch of laws and it is the law of the land. It is possible for the constitution to say "All citizens must stop drinking" and for it to be enforced just like any other law but it also establishes laws for the federal and state governments as well and it is supreme to them as well. This makes it something that can be used against the government and that same government can use it against the citizens. This means that we are all on equal footing with respect to the constitution and that is that we are all subject to it no matter if we are citizen, state, or federal government.

I think the founders were quite brilliant in establishing it as the law of the land because if I have to obey the laws the constitution establishes for me in it then so does the government itself which makes the government my equal no matter if it is local, state, or federal.

There are several reasons why the Founders had to include the Supremacy Clause. The main being that without it a Federal Republic would never work, there has to be a final arbiter and a measure of uniformity throughout the States or all you have is what they were getting away from: a Confederacy. That worked out so well they scrapped it and started all over again! You can't have fifty people who all want to go to a different part of the park walking one dog, the poor dog will end up torn to pieces every time.

I will say the only attempt to use the Constitution as a "Thou shalt not" against the citizens was the unmitigated disaster that was Prohibition, and I doubt the States would be dumb enough to try it again. (I hope, anyway)

 

[dilloduck]

That is the purpose of a constitution in the first place - to create a government and delineate the structure, powers, and responsibilities of said government. To the citizens it grants certain protections from governmental power we think of as "rights", it does not create any responsibilities.

Of course it is a Federal constitution, whoever told you otherwise really does not understand the purpose of the document.

The constitution is just a bunch of laws and it is the law of the land. It is possible for the constitution to say "All citizens must stop drinking" and for it to be enforced just like any other law but it also establishes laws for the federal and state governments as well and it is supreme to them as well. This makes it something that can be used against the government and that same government can use it against the citizens. This means that we are all on equal footing with respect to the constitution and that is that we are all subject to it no matter if we are citizen, state, or federal government.

I think the founders were quite brilliant in establishing it as the law of the land because if I have to obey the laws the constitution establishes for me in it then so does the government itself which makes the government my equal no matter if it is local, state, or federal.

There are several reasons why the Founders had to include the Supremacy Clause. The main being that without it a Federal Republic would never work, there has to be a final arbiter and a measure of uniformity throughout the States or all you have is what they were getting away from: a Confederacy. That worked out so well they scrapped it and started all over again! You can't have fifty people who all want to go to a different part of the park walking one dog, the poor dog will end up torn to pieces every time.

I will say the only attempt to use the Constitution as a "Thou shalt not" against the citizens was the unmitigated disaster that was Prohibition, and I doubt the States would be dumb enough to try it again. (I hope, anyway)

They've learned to be much more subtle with the "shalt nots" I'm afraid.

 

[amrchaos]

States can interpret STATE constitutions--The US constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court and not the States.

What are you trying to do--create internal conflict and American chaos?? Do you know how many crazy nutjob politicians exists at the State level?? There are more in one state than there are in the Congress!! Do you understand??

 

[goldcatt]

The constitution is just a bunch of laws and it is the law of the land. It is possible for the constitution to say "All citizens must stop drinking" and for it to be enforced just like any other law but it also establishes laws for the federal and state governments as well and it is supreme to them as well. This makes it something that can be used against the government and that same government can use it against the citizens. This means that we are all on equal footing with respect to the constitution and that is that we are all subject to it no matter if we are citizen, state, or federal government.

I think the founders were quite brilliant in establishing it as the law of the land because if I have to obey the laws the constitution establishes for me in it then so does the government itself which makes the government my equal no matter if it is local, state, or federal.

There are several reasons why the Founders had to include the Supremacy Clause. The main being that without it a Federal Republic would never work, there has to be a final arbiter and a measure of uniformity throughout the States or all you have is what they were getting away from: a Confederacy. That worked out so well they scrapped it and started all over again! You can't have fifty people who all want to go to a different part of the park walking one dog, the poor dog will end up torn to pieces every time.

I will say the only attempt to use the Constitution as a "Thou shalt not" against the citizens was the unmitigated disaster that was Prohibition, and I doubt the States would be dumb enough to try it again. (I hope, anyway)

They've learned to be much more subtle with the "shalt nots" I'm afraid.

Of course they have, but with statutes and regs rather than amending the Constitution. For which I for one am at least a little bit grateful.

 

[ihopehefails]

That is the purpose of a constitution in the first place - to create a government and delineate the structure, powers, and responsibilities of said government. To the citizens it grants certain protections from governmental power we think of as "rights", it does not create any responsibilities.

Of course it is a Federal constitution, whoever told you otherwise really does not understand the purpose of the document.

The constitution is just a bunch of laws and it is the law of the land. It is possible for the constitution to say "All citizens must stop drinking" and for it to be enforced just like any other law but it also establishes laws for the federal and state governments as well and it is supreme to them as well. This makes it something that can be used against the government and that same government can use it against the citizens. This means that we are all on equal footing with respect to the constitution and that is that we are all subject to it no matter if we are citizen, state, or federal government.

I think the founders were quite brilliant in establishing it as the law of the land because if I have to obey the laws the constitution establishes for me in it then so does the government itself which makes the government my equal no matter if it is local, state, or federal.

There are several reasons why the Founders had to include the Supremacy Clause. The main being that without it a Federal Republic would never work, there has to be a final arbiter and a measure of uniformity throughout the States or all you have is what they were getting away from: a Confederacy. That worked out so well they scrapped it and started all over again! You can't have fifty people who all want to go to a different part of the park walking one dog, the poor dog will end up torn to pieces every time.

I will say the only attempt to use the Constitution as a "Thou shalt not" against the citizens was the unmitigated disaster that was Prohibition, and I doubt the States would be dumb enough to try it again. (I hope, anyway)

OK but the only difference I have is that the constitution and all laws in congruence with it are the supreme law of the land. Its not the federal government, any state government, or any citizen but it is the constitution itself that is. This makes us all subject to its written authority.

 

[ihopehefails]

States can interpret STATE constitutions--The US constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court and not the States.

What are you trying to do--create internal conflict and American chaos?? Do you know how many crazy nutjob politicians exists at the State level?? There are more in one state than there are in the Congress!! Do you understand??

Do you know how many exist at the federal level?