Can States Interpret the constitution?

[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)

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.

Other laws come and go, the Constitution itself is the only supreme law of the land. It's at the top of the pyramid called the hierarchy of law. Don't make the common mistake of confusing statutory constructs with constitutional authority. The rest of the laws created in accordance with it fall in layers beneath it, but only the COTUS itself is supreme.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

Other laws come and go, the Constitution itself is the only supreme law of the land. It's at the top of the pyramid called the hierarchy of law. Don't make the common mistake of confusing statutory constructs with constitutional authority. The rest of the laws created in accordance with it fall in layers beneath it, but only the COTUS itself is supreme.

I wish I understood what you are trying to say...

 

[goldcatt]

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.

Other laws come and go, the Constitution itself is the only supreme law of the land. It's at the top of the pyramid called the hierarchy of law. Don't make the common mistake of confusing statutory constructs with constitutional authority. The rest of the laws created in accordance with it fall in layers beneath it, but only the COTUS itself is supreme.

I wish I understood what you are trying to say...

All right, I'll try again.

There is a hierarchy of laws, think of it as a pyramid with a bunch of different layers. The Constitution is at the very top, by itself.

All laws on the local, State and Federal level fall into place as one of the layers underneath the constitution. So the next layer would be Acts of Congress (Federal statutes), which are above State laws but still subject to the COTUS. and so on down the line to the bottom.

The mistake a lot of people make when talking about laws made in accordance with the COTUS, particularly when talking about interpretation issues, is to confuse Constitutional authority with other laws made subject to or in accordance with the constitution, but are not on the same level.

So for example, a Supreme Court ruling that interprets a constitutional provision would be considered constitutional in nature, and sits at the top of the pyramid. A Supreme Court ruling interpreting a provision of an Act of Congress is not, and does not. I'm not sure if that's clearer?

 

[ihopehefails]

Other laws come and go, the Constitution itself is the only supreme law of the land. It's at the top of the pyramid called the hierarchy of law. Don't make the common mistake of confusing statutory constructs with constitutional authority. The rest of the laws created in accordance with it fall in layers beneath it, but only the COTUS itself is supreme.

I wish I understood what you are trying to say...

All right, I'll try again.

There is a hierarchy of laws, think of it as a pyramid with a bunch of different layers. The Constitution is at the very top, by itself.

All laws on the local, State and Federal level fall into place as one of the layers underneath the constitution. So the next layer would be Acts of Congress (Federal statutes), which are above State laws but still subject to the COTUS. and so on down the line to the bottom.

The mistake a lot of people make when talking about laws made in accordance with the COTUS, particularly when talking about interpretation issues, is to confuse Constitutional authority with other laws made subject to or in accordance with the constitution, but are not on the same level.

So for example, a Supreme Court ruling that interprets a constitutional provision would be considered constitutional in nature, and sits at the top of the pyramid. A Supreme Court ruling interpreting a provision of an Act of Congress is not, and does not. I'm not sure if that's clearer?

OK. I got what you are saying.

I actually argue that state and federal laws are on the same level (in some cases) since the fifth amendment applies to everything because it start out with "No person shall...". This means that a state law that violates the constitution is just as unconstituional as an identical federal law since both are subject to the same amendment since it refers to what may not happen to a person without the due process of law which means state, local, and federal law.

This is why the federal government shouldn't be the final arbitrator in all cases regarding the constitution. It would strike down a similar state law but may not strike down a similar federal law since it is a part of the same government that created it.

 

[goldcatt]

I wish I understood what you are trying to say...

All right, I'll try again.

There is a hierarchy of laws, think of it as a pyramid with a bunch of different layers. The Constitution is at the very top, by itself.

All laws on the local, State and Federal level fall into place as one of the layers underneath the constitution. So the next layer would be Acts of Congress (Federal statutes), which are above State laws but still subject to the COTUS. and so on down the line to the bottom.

The mistake a lot of people make when talking about laws made in accordance with the COTUS, particularly when talking about interpretation issues, is to confuse Constitutional authority with other laws made subject to or in accordance with the constitution, but are not on the same level.

So for example, a Supreme Court ruling that interprets a constitutional provision would be considered constitutional in nature, and sits at the top of the pyramid. A Supreme Court ruling interpreting a provision of an Act of Congress is not, and does not. I'm not sure if that's clearer?

OK. I got what you are saying.

I actually argue that state and federal laws are on the same level (in some cases) since the fifth amendment applies to everything because it start out with "No person shall...". This means that a state law that violates the constitution is just as unconstituional as an identical federal law since both are subject to the same amendment since it refers to what may not happen to a person without the due process of law which means state, local, and federal law.

This is why the federal government shouldn't be the final arbitrator in all cases regarding the constitution. It would strike down a similar state law but may not strike down a similar federal law since it is a part of the same government that created it.

The problem with looking at it this way is you are not looking at the Supremacy Clause, or keeping the separate layers of the pyramid separate. Where State and Federal are in conflict, Federal will always win. Which is why State courts can apply and interpret the Federal constitution, but the Federal courts are the final arbiters with SCOTUS having the final word.

As far as whether a State law would be unconstitutional but a similar Federal one would not be, you are correct in that all laws no matter what the origins are subject to the same constitutional principles. There's a reason why Federal judges are appointed for life and don't have to worry about political concerns. Also why they have their own separate branch of government, distinct from the other two and with a certain tension built between them. Why should they care if Congress gets more power, when they are so often at loggerheads?

You're close, but not quite there.

 

[ihopehefails]

All right, I'll try again.

There is a hierarchy of laws, think of it as a pyramid with a bunch of different layers. The Constitution is at the very top, by itself.

All laws on the local, State and Federal level fall into place as one of the layers underneath the constitution. So the next layer would be Acts of Congress (Federal statutes), which are above State laws but still subject to the COTUS. and so on down the line to the bottom.

The mistake a lot of people make when talking about laws made in accordance with the COTUS, particularly when talking about interpretation issues, is to confuse Constitutional authority with other laws made subject to or in accordance with the constitution, but are not on the same level.

So for example, a Supreme Court ruling that interprets a constitutional provision would be considered constitutional in nature, and sits at the top of the pyramid. A Supreme Court ruling interpreting a provision of an Act of Congress is not, and does not. I'm not sure if that's clearer?

OK. I got what you are saying.

I actually argue that state and federal laws are on the same level (in some cases) since the fifth amendment applies to everything because it start out with "No person shall...". This means that a state law that violates the constitution is just as unconstituional as an identical federal law since both are subject to the same amendment since it refers to what may not happen to a person without the due process of law which means state, local, and federal law.

This is why the federal government shouldn't be the final arbitrator in all cases regarding the constitution. It would strike down a similar state law but may not strike down a similar federal law since it is a part of the same government that created it.

The problem with looking at it this way is you are not looking at the Supremacy Clause, or keeping the separate layers of the pyramid separate. Where State and Federal are in conflict, Federal will always win. Which is why State courts can apply and interpret the Federal constitution, but the Federal courts are the final arbiters with SCOTUS having the final word.

As far as whether a State law would be unconstitutional but a similar Federal one would not be, you are correct in that all laws no matter what the origins are subject to the same constitutional principles. There's a reason why Federal judges are appointed for life and don't have to worry about political concerns. Also why they have their own separate branch of government, distinct from the other two and with a certain tension built between them. Why should they care if Congress gets more power, when they are so often at loggerheads?

You're close, but not quite there.

Doesn't this say that any federal and state law are subject equally by the same constitutional provision and doesn't that make them equals in the respect that federal statutes don't override state statutes but it is the constitution that overrides both federal and state laws when they are in conflict?

 

[goldcatt]

OK. I got what you are saying.

I actually argue that state and federal laws are on the same level (in some cases) since the fifth amendment applies to everything because it start out with "No person shall...". This means that a state law that violates the constitution is just as unconstituional as an identical federal law since both are subject to the same amendment since it refers to what may not happen to a person without the due process of law which means state, local, and federal law.

This is why the federal government shouldn't be the final arbitrator in all cases regarding the constitution. It would strike down a similar state law but may not strike down a similar federal law since it is a part of the same government that created it.

The problem with looking at it this way is you are not looking at the Supremacy Clause, or keeping the separate layers of the pyramid separate. Where State and Federal are in conflict, Federal will always win. Which is why State courts can apply and interpret the Federal constitution, but the Federal courts are the final arbiters with SCOTUS having the final word.

As far as whether a State law would be unconstitutional but a similar Federal one would not be, you are correct in that all laws no matter what the origins are subject to the same constitutional principles. There's a reason why Federal judges are appointed for life and don't have to worry about political concerns. Also why they have their own separate branch of government, distinct from the other two and with a certain tension built between them. Why should they care if Congress gets more power, when they are so often at loggerheads?

You're close, but not quite there.

Doesn't this say that any federal and state law are subject equally by the same constitutional provision and doesn't that make them equals in the respect that federal statutes don't override state statutes but it is the constitution that overrides both federal and state laws when they are in conflict?

Start at the top of the pyramid and work down.

If both are in conflict with the Constitution, both will be struck down.

If they are "similar" but not identical, one may be in conflict with the Constitution and one may not be on the basis of just a few words. Stranger things have happened. The one in conflict will be struck down, the other will stand.

If neither are in conflict with the Constitution, but the State is in conflict with the Federal, the Federal will win as to those parts that are in conflict.

Or you can think of it as a flow chart, if that's easier. Same concept.

 

[ihopehefails]

The problem with looking at it this way is you are not looking at the Supremacy Clause, or keeping the separate layers of the pyramid separate. Where State and Federal are in conflict, Federal will always win. Which is why State courts can apply and interpret the Federal constitution, but the Federal courts are the final arbiters with SCOTUS having the final word.

As far as whether a State law would be unconstitutional but a similar Federal one would not be, you are correct in that all laws no matter what the origins are subject to the same constitutional principles. There's a reason why Federal judges are appointed for life and don't have to worry about political concerns. Also why they have their own separate branch of government, distinct from the other two and with a certain tension built between them. Why should they care if Congress gets more power, when they are so often at loggerheads?

You're close, but not quite there.

Doesn't this say that any federal and state law are subject equally by the same constitutional provision and doesn't that make them equals in the respect that federal statutes don't override state statutes but it is the constitution that overrides both federal and state laws when they are in conflict?

Start at the top of the pyramid and work down.

If both are in conflict with the Constitution, both will be struck down.

If they are "similar" but not identical, one may be in conflict with the Constitution and one may not be on the basis of just a few words. Stranger things have happened. The one in conflict will be struck down, the other will stand.

If neither are in conflict with the Constitution, but the State is in conflict with the Federal, the Federal will win as to those parts that are in conflict.

Or you can think of it as a flow chart, if that's easier. Same concept.

OK. What if the state law is constitutional but the federal law is unconstitutional shouldn't the state law stand?

 

[goldcatt]

Doesn't this say that any federal and state law are subject equally by the same constitutional provision and doesn't that make them equals in the respect that federal statutes don't override state statutes but it is the constitution that overrides both federal and state laws when they are in conflict?

Start at the top of the pyramid and work down.

If both are in conflict with the Constitution, both will be struck down.

If they are "similar" but not identical, one may be in conflict with the Constitution and one may not be on the basis of just a few words. Stranger things have happened. The one in conflict will be struck down, the other will stand.

If neither are in conflict with the Constitution, but the State is in conflict with the Federal, the Federal will win as to those parts that are in conflict.

Or you can think of it as a flow chart, if that's easier. Same concept.

OK. What if the state law is constitutional but the federal law is unconstitutional shouldn't the state law stand?

In that case, yes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The states have a duty to interpret the Constitution.

The states can't interpret the Constitution in any sense that is binding.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If a court decision is based on adequate and independent state constitutional grounds, then the feds have no jurisdiction to hear it. There must be a federal question for a federal court to entertain a state decision.

Every State is of course the final arbiter of interpreting its own State constitution, unless it is in conflict with the Federal. But I read the topic to be whether the States individually have the right to interpret the Federal constitution? In that case, if it is a question of Federal constitutionality the Plaintiff automatically has Federal Question jurisdiction.

Right, I was just clarifying, to emphasize sovereign status, "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".

Yes, state courts are not divested of federal claims, even 1983 actions. however, if a federal question claim is filed in state court, it may removed. The CA Prop 8 case was filed in state court asserting federal claims, the feds removed it under 28 USC 1442.

The Feds also agreed to hear it.

This fraud of a poster is being deceitful.

The law-bluffer will mention controlling precedent in a deceptive manner. They will present an opinion as agreed upon fact.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

And anyone can 'interpret' the Constitution, but only the SCOTUS gets to decide what is constitutional.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

States and people may interpret only as opinion as law-bluffer does...


somebody said it better than I could over at Opposing Views: Issues, Experts, Answers

Actually, the CA Supreme Court specifically cited Loving in its decision, "In re Marriage Cases," which legalized same-gender marriage in CA.

As Prop 8 continues its appeals process through the Federal Court system we may very well see exactly how Loving (and Perez, an earlier CASC antimiscegenation decision) apply to the issue of same-gender marriage.

I'm sure you'd like to believe that it's not applicable, but that remains to be seen.

from The Advocate web site regarding the MINN case...in federal court

Here is the key sentence. Citing Baker, the Justice Department writes: "Regardless of whether same-sex marriage is appropriate policy, under current legal precedent there is no constitutional right to it, and that precedent is binding on these parties and this court."

Professor Dorf commented: "The fact that the Obama administration is arguing this only boosts the case for supporters of Prop. 8. And it offers an easy out for a judge who doesn't want to take the heat for deciding this."

For now, the Boies-Olson team is taking a relatively relaxed view of the matter. "The good news is, the assertion is completely wrong," said Ted Boutrous, a partner in Olson's firm of Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher. "What Baker v. Nelson means is that whatever law was on the books in Minnesota at the time is potentially insulated from review. It would have no binding effect on reviewing Prop. 8."

The SC permits the death penalty under the 8th, so it is a state's decision. The SC has decided the same sex marriage issue, so it is up to a state then to decide if it violates thier own laws/constitution, since the SC upheld the ban on federal constitutional grounds.

from august...before the Federal Court Agreed to hear the case...

In a court brief filed yesterday, the Boies-Olson team elaborate this argument further, saying that circumstances in modern-day California are entirely different from 1970s Minnesota, and that the legal environment has changed entirely because of such landmark LGBT rights rulings as Romer v. Evans (a Colorado state discrimination case) and Lawrence v. Texas (which overturned existing state anti-sodomy laws).
"Even if Baker had not been conclusively undermined by the Supreme Court's subsequent decisions in Romer and Lawrence, " the brief says, "it still would not be binding on this court because the Supreme Court's summary dismissals have controlling force only 'on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided' by the Supreme Court." The Advocate Web Site......source..

The SC permits the death penalty under the 8th, so it is a state's decision. The SC has decided the same sex marriage issue, so it is up to a state then to decide if it violates thier own laws/constitution, since the SC upheld the ban on federal constitutional grounds.

How so?

Personally, I think people are retarded to give the government the power over life or death.

Many are opposed to the death penalty and don't want the state doing it in thier name, I understand that. The current Prop 8 case is based on the legality of DOMA, not Baker, but the binding effect of Baker is still a reality. I posted this link in another thread about this some months ago. I simply stated the SC ruled that same sex marriage prohibitions do not violate the federal constitution. I have seen no babsis to retract that, either in this thread or the old ones.

In part:

In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[13] Because this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[14] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issues the Court necessarily considered in dismissing the case.[15]

Baker v. Nelson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the law-bluffer doesn't admit and/or chooses to ignore:

from august...before the Federal Court Agreed to hear the case...

In a court brief filed yesterday, the Boies-Olson team elaborate this argument further, saying that circumstances in modern-day California are entirely different from 1970s Minnesota, and that the legal environment has changed entirely because of such landmark LGBT rights rulings as Romer v. Evans (a Colorado state discrimination case) and Lawrence v. Texas (which overturned existing state anti-sodomy laws).

"Even if Baker had not been conclusively undermined by the Supreme Court's subsequent decisions in Romer and Lawrence, " the brief says, "it still would not be binding on this court because the Supreme Court's summary dismissals have controlling force only 'on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided' by the Supreme Court." The Advocate Web Site......source..

here is the key sentence. Citing Baker, the Justice Department writes: "Regardless of whether same-sex marriage is appropriate policy, under current legal precedent there is no constitutional right to it, and that precedent is binding on these parties and this court."

Professor Dorf commented: "The fact that the Obama administration is arguing this only boosts the case for supporters of Prop. 8. And it offers an easy out for a judge who doesn't want to take the heat for deciding this."

For now, the Boies-Olson team is taking a relatively relaxed view of the matter. "The good news is, the assertion is completely wrong," said Ted Boutrous, a partner in Olson's firm of Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher. "What Baker v. Nelson means is that whatever law was on the books in Minnesota at the time is potentially insulated from review. It would have no binding effect on reviewing Prop. 8."

 

[lawbuff]

Whatever Devnell, you have nothing better to do with yourself than to keep attacking me. You sent me TWO PM's already doing such, and I did not respond to either. Do not send me anymore or I will report you to the forum management.

 

[ihopehefails]

The states have a duty to interpret the Constitution.

The states can't interpret the Constitution in any sense that is binding.

That is true since the constitution says that all cases arising under the constitution is decided by the federal judiciary but is it an exclusive right of the federal judiciary or is it a co-equal power with them?

 

[lawbuff]

The states have a duty to interpret the Constitution.

The states can't interpret the Constitution in any sense that is binding.

That is true since the constitution says that all cases arising under the constitution is decided by the federal judiciary but is it an exclusive right of the federal judiciary or is it a co-equal power with them?

States can interpret the federal constitution, and yes, it would be binding on that jurisdiction until otherwise overruled. Take for instance Robinette. The OSC ruled that pursuant to the 4th AM, an officer must tell a detained motorist they are "free to go" to conclude a stop. This matter/phrase had never been submitted before to the US SC, a so called matter of 1st impression, if you will. The US SC ruled the 4th demands no such phraseology and remanded. A new syllabus came out in Robinette 2.

Until overruled by the US SC, it was binding law in Ohio.

....We are here presented with the question whether the Fourth Amendment requires that a lawfully seized defendant must be advised that he is "free to go" before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary. We hold that it does not....



Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The states have a duty to interpret the Constitution.

The states can't interpret the Constitution in any sense that is binding.

Of course they can. They have just as much right as the federal government to interpret the Constitution.

the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Whatever Devnell, you have nothing better to do with yourself than to keep attacking me. You sent me TWO PM's already doing such, and I did not respond to either. Do not send me anymore or I will report you to the forum management.

what is this? so long after? when was the last time I contacted you? fuck off.

stop manufacturing a crisis. geesh!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The states can't interpret the Constitution in any sense that is binding.

That is true since the constitution says that all cases arising under the constitution is decided by the federal judiciary but is it an exclusive right of the federal judiciary or is it a co-equal power with them?

States can interpret the federal constitution, and yes, it would be binding on that jurisdiction until otherwise overruled. Take for instance Robinette. The OSC ruled that pursuant to the 4th AM, an officer must tell a detained motorist they are "free to go" to conclude a stop. This matter/phrase had never been submitted before to the US SC, a so called matter of 1st impression, if you will. The US SC ruled the 4th demands no such phraseology and remanded. A new syllabus came out in Robinette 2.

Until overruled by the US SC, it was binding law in Ohio.

....We are here presented with the question whether the Fourth Amendment requires that a lawfully seized defendant must be advised that he is "free to go" before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary. We hold that it does not....



Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996)

girlyman/boy alert!

this guy is PMing people and looking for trouble.

plus, he ignores what you post. sticks with his controlling issue...in law and in life.


I NEVER SENT HIM A MESSAGE! lol

methinks the douchebagh is talking about rep points and thanks.

lol

 

[bodecea]

It says laws pursuent to which is a conditional that suggest that they must be constitutional first.

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.

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?

That's called Nullification and I believe that that has been mulled and fought over already. A state does NOT have the right to pick and choose which federal laws they can obey.