Citizens United v. FEC and Kelo v. City of New London
For those unfamiliar, the former conveyed increased personhood upon corporations (a right wing agenda), and the latter dramatically expanded the scope of eminent domain (a left wing agenda), both in clear contravention of how a layman (and many legal scholars) would interpret the Constitution.
Marbury v Madison - Court case of Marbury v MadisonThis historic court case established the concept of Judicial Review or the ability of the Judiciary Branch to declare a law unconstitutional. This case brought the Judicial Branch of the government on a more even power basis with the Legislative and Executive Branches. The Founding Fathers expected the branches of government to act as checks and balances on each other. The historic court case Marbury v. Madison accomplished this end thereby setting the precedent for numerous historic decisions in the future.
At best, all federal law devolves from the constitution, but not all federal law is constitutional. Furthermore, in certain cases the constitution overrides conflicting state or local law (the 2nd Amendment exceptions, noted by others, are valid -- in NYC it is illegal to possess a handgun without a permit (which is said to be nearly impossible to obtain), for example). Prior to ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 there were many other exceptions. To wit:
"In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states" (see 14th Amendment link above)
Furthermore, at the constitution's inception there was no specific authority therein for the Supreme Court to decide constitutional issues (as others have already noted, re Marbury v. Madison (1803), to little avail it seems).
The Supremacy Clause simply states that if a state law conflicts with a federal law, then the federal law trumps the state law (as AZ will find out with their immigration law). However, in some instances, and again some state gun laws are the prime example, state or local laws do conflict with the constitution and are allowed to do so by the court. So it's a mixed bag [shrug]
When the Supreme Court takes up a case, it does so in an attempt to determine the "constitutionality" of said law, not whether or not such a law was violated. However, as has already been pointed out our laws and ordiances are based on constitutional principles. Therefore, in that sense the root of all U.S. laws - federal, state or local - are derived from the guiding priciples of the Constitution. But the Constitution itself is not the supreme law of the land. It just lays the foundation for all other laws written by Congress, soverign states and local municipalities.
Normally I wouldn't bother collecting statistics such as those, but you consistently do this -- someone pokes a hole in something you say, you demand proof, proof is produced, and you simply stop talking.
Some days I wonder why I even bother... Oh, wait, I know -- because I've seen you accuse other people of failing to back up their assertions. Funny, that.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
Wow, the results of this poll totally shocked me!
/end threadThis 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
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)