Rigby5
Diamond Member
I am not sure what you mean. The judicature adjudicates based on our federal Constitution and express, supreme law of the land. The judicial branch is delegated the judicial power of the United States.Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.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.Wrong.
In a democratic republic, only individuals have rights, and sovereign states only have delegated authority.
You said it yourself, that state powers come from what the people enumerate when they create that entity and delegate to it.
A created entity can never have rights, as rights are supposed to be inherent and immutable.
Even prisoners are supposed to still have rights, just subordinated to the rights of others they threaten.
The word "law" here refers to legislations, but actually rights are the source of legal authority that allows legislation to be written, and inherent rights really are supreme law of the land really.
All written legislation then has to conform to and be authorized by those inherent rights they derive from.
That means states can not go off and arbitrarily decide to do things anyway they way.
The constitution is supposed to divide jurisdictions and delineate federal and state jurisdictions.
However, there are still superior principles to all federal and state legislation, because the come from inherent rights of individuals.
And federal gun control laws violate both the 2nd amendment and those basic superior principles.
The federal government was denies any firearms jurisdiction by the constitution, and individuals need to be the source of armed force in any democratic republic.
The federal constitution is the supreme legislation of the land, but it is not supreme law.
For example, is says nothing about many individual rights that are superior to the constitution.
Like the right of privacy.
It is not in the constitution specifically, but is a superior unenumerated right, which can not legally be abridged by the constitution or any mere legislation.
The only time inherent rights like privacy can be abridged is when necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of others.
That really is obvious if you think about it, because where did the constitution come from?
It can't just be arbitrary because then we would have a dictatorship instead of a democratic republic.
The Declaration of Independence tells us where the constitution came from.
It came from the same inherent individual rights that justified our rebellion from England.
These inherent rights are supreme law of the land, and is where the justification and authority for the constitution came from.
Wrong.
For example, abortion rights rulings are based on the inherent individual right of privacy, which is not all mentioned in the Constitution in any way.
The constitution is not at all an attempt to create, list, or protect inherent individual rights.
It is just a division of jurisdiction between state and federal.
The whole point of the 14th amendment is about how the real basis for law and its source of authority comes from inherent individual rights.
The SCOTUS can use the constitution to help decide what these inherent individual rights are, based on the shadow they cast in the framing of the constitution, but many are not there, like the right of privacy.
We have to go back to ancient common law precedent to find them.
Which means the constitution is NOT the source of all law.
And what "supreme law of the land" means is not that it is the source of all law, but that it is the final arbiter of jurisdiction between state and federal jurisdiction.
There not only are layers above the Constitution, but there have to be, in order to authorize and justify the existence of the constitution itself.