Can States Interpret the constitution?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

There is nothing that says nullification is illegal, however. The Constitution was never amended to take that power away from the states.

 

[Liability]

States can and do interpret the U.S. Constitution. The thing is, though, that the interpretation of a matter under consideration involving the U.S. Constitution by a State's highest Court is not necessarily authoritative since it can be overruled by a Federal Court.

Where an issue involving a claim that the U.S. Constitution is being violated gets litigated, the final say is by the SCOTUS. If a State's highest Court disagrees, that's too bad.

It does sometimes happen that the SCOTUS says something like, "that is not a right guaranteed to a defendant by the U.S. Constitution." But that does not mean that a State's highest Court is denied the ability to "find" that the STATE'S own Constitution DOES guarantee that very same "right." As to that ruling, the Federal Courts would then have no say.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

thank you

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

There is nothing that says nullification is illegal, however. The Constitution was never amended to take that power away from the states.

She didn't say it was illegal. She said it was mulled over.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

States can and do interpret the U.S. Constitution. The thing is, though, that the interpretation of a matter under consideration involving the U.S. Constitution by a State's highest Court is not necessarily authoritative since it can be overruled by a Federal Court.

Where an issue involving a claim that the U.S. Constitution is being violated gets litigated, the final say is by the SCOTUS. If a State's highest Court disagrees, that's too bad.

It does sometimes happen that the SCOTUS says something like, "that is not a right guaranteed to a defendant by the U.S. Constitution." But that does not mean that a State's highest Court is denied the ability to "find" that the STATE'S own Constitution DOES guarantee that very same "right." As to that ruling, the Federal Courts would then have no say.

YOu are saying State Courts get to interpret the US Constitution?

Federal Question:
Any state court may interpret the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, treaty, etc., if the applicable Constitutional provision, statute, or treaty has direct bearing on a case brought in state court under a state law.

However, by interpreting the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, or treaty, the state is subjecting itself to federal review. This means that after a state supreme court has acted on a case, the U.S. Supreme Court may review it.

In such instances, the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned only with reviewing the state court's interpretation of the applicable federal Constitutional provision, statute, or treaty.
It does not review any matters of law that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts.

 

[Liability]

Well, for a refreshing dose of reality, it is the case that states DO have the right to disregard and ignore (i.e., "nullify") any purported Federal "law" which is violative of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause applies, by its very terms*, (rather explicitly stated terms at that) to laws enacted by (and treaties entered into by) the United State's government which are made in pursuance of the Constitution.

THUS, if the Federal Government, in purportedly enacting some "law," violates the limitations imposed by the Constitution on its authority, then the law is NOT made in "pursuance of" the Constitution and it ceases to have such a claim to "supremacy."

*

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

There is nothing that says nullification is illegal, however. The Constitution was never amended to take that power away from the states.

She didn't say it was illegal. She said it was mulled over.

She implied that it was illegal.

 

[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?

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.

There is nothing that says nullification is illegal, however. The Constitution was never amended to take that power away from the states.

..

... because the states never intrincally had that power in the first place.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

There is nothing that says nullification is illegal, however. The Constitution was never amended to take that power away from the states.

..

... because the states never intrincally had that power in the first place.

Where does the Constitution forbid them from doing so?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is nothing that says nullification is illegal, however. The Constitution was never amended to take that power away from the states.

She didn't say it was illegal. She said it was mulled over.

She implied that it was illegal.

tru dat!

Understanding Federal and State Courts

Federal Question: Any state court may interpret the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, treaty, etc., if the applicable Constitutional provision, statute, or treaty has direct bearing on a case brought in state court under a state law.

However, by interpreting the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, or treaty, the state is subjecting itself to federal review. This means that after a state supreme court has acted on a case, the U.S. Supreme Court may review it.

In such instances, the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned only with reviewing the state court's interpretation of the applicable federal Constitutional provision, statute, or treaty. It does not review any matters of law that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts.

 

[bodecea]

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 unconsitutional. A federal court can though.

State Courts CAN rule that a Federal Law is Unconstitutional and force it to be decided at the Federal level. The State is not the final arbiter but they can make the ruling and have it stand until changed by a Federal Court.

Um, that's what he said.....

 

[bodecea]

There is nothing that says nullification is illegal, however. The Constitution was never amended to take that power away from the states.

She didn't say it was illegal. She said it was mulled over.

She implied that it was illegal.

Did I? Really? I said it was mulled and fought over. You might want to look to the whole issue between John C. Calhoun and Andrew Jackson. While it's legality was not decided, Jackson quite clearly THREATENED South Carolina with military action if they pushed the issue.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

She didn't say it was illegal. She said it was mulled over.

She implied that it was illegal.

Did I? Really? I said it was mulled and fought over. You might want to look to the whole issue between John C. Calhoun and Andrew Jackson. While it's legality was not decided, Jackson quite clearly THREATENED South Carolina with military action if they pushed the issue.

Yes, you did. You said it was "mulled over," and then said they don't have the right to do it. Implying it was illegal. And I'm aware of the situation between Jackson and Calhoun, but no laws changed regardless of Jackson's threat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is nothing that says nullification is illegal, however. The Constitution was never amended to take that power away from the states.

..

... because the states never intrincally had that power in the first place.

Where does the Constitution forbid them from doing so?

Where are they empowered to do it? Since they are not, then a good constitutionalist would deny any such right.

 

[Liability]

..

... because the states never intrincally had that power in the first place.

Where does the Constitution forbid them from doing so?

Where are they empowered to do it? Since they are not, then a good constitutionalist would deny any such right.

Ignorant and flatly wrong. The U.S. Constitution is not the source of States' powers and authority. It is the source of the Federal Government's powers and authority and sets for the limitations on the Federal Government.

The Constitution RESERVES the powers of the States and of the People, resepctfully to them, to the extent not otherwise granted to the Federal government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the "necessary" and "general welfare" clauses make the national government supreme to the state governments. They have no implicit or implied right to secession.