Can States Interpret the constitution?

[ihopehefails]

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.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Give me links to the specific sections you are talking about please.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

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.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

Give me links to the specific sections you are talking about please.

Article III Section 2

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The states have a duty to interpret the Constitution.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

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.

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.

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.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

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.

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.

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.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

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?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

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.

Only Constitutional sound laws are supreme. A State could argue a Constitutional basis for opposing a law or statute and until it was resolved the State could ignore it based on their Courts rulings.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

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?

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

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.

 

[lawbuff]

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.

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.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

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.

 

[lawbuff]

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.

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.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

This was what I was going to say.

For purely practical reasons, the States can NOT be the final arbiters of what is or is not Constitutional. That would lead to 50 different Constitutions (More with protectorates and territories). Logic dictates someone has to get the final word. However, the States are clearly part of the process and have a duty to diligently enforce the Constitution as far as their jurisdiction goes.

Not only that, but things like the Full Faith and Credit clauses and the Supremecy Clause clearly imply that the Founders had in mind a more over arching set of rules between the States.

 

[ihopehefails]

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?

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.

 

[goldcatt]

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 defendant can always remove to Federal court with a showing of proper jurisdiction, of course. I read your post to say that a State court can interpret a Federal constitutionality question on adequate and independent State grounds, which of course is impossible. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

I disagree slightly because the fed courts should be the final decider in some cases that involve the purpose of the federal government such as disputes over treaties, ambassadors, and etc but I don't see the harm in having states be the final arbitrators in some cases. In fact, I think it is quite healthy because it puts a check on judicial tyranny and the federal government because they know any law passed has to pass mustard with all fifty states. This would make the federal government write uber constitutional bills or not try at all and keep to their original duties of dealing with international issues that the states delegated to the federal government.

Unfortunately, as far as I know, that is not the constitution that is written and the federal government court system is the final arbitrator over its own power which I think was a mistake.