• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the US Constitution the Supreme Law of the United States?

Is the US Constitution the Supreme Law of the United States?

  • Total voters
    43
TacticalEvilDan said:
Natural law isn't about what "the majority" feels should be legal or illegal. It's about how society as a whole simply reacts. As for prohibition, it was certainly enforceable, but at a cost far higher than the benefits gained, which is why it was reversed.
Click to expand...

The fact remains that a law disliked by many people were enforceable, contrary to your arguement.


You're free to believe it means even less than nothing. It does not require your belief. It simply is.
Click to expand...

I know I'm free to believe what I want - the Constitution protects that right - not "natural law" as you define it - which is why I'm glad that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and not "natural law" however you want to define it.
 
whysoserious said:
How about you tell us about it. :)
Click to expand...

I want Thunder to read about it, since Thunder was the one rather haughtily positing that somebody else didn't understand the Constitution and the Supreme Court, and furthermore that liberals are the ones having to teach conservatives about these things.

He won't. He'll just keep ignoring me since it's more convenient for him to do so than it would be for him to admit he might've been wrong.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The Constitution most certainly did not prevent discrimination or guarantee basic rights for all at its inception, and not for quite some time afterwards. The tyranny of the majority was alive and well for the first 100+ years.
Click to expand...

Tyranny over the silent minority is still alive and well because of our judicial process. The problem with the judicial process was that we somehow thought that the judges were going to do their job of unbiased interpretation instead of agenda driven legislation from the bench.
 
friday said:
Tyranny over the silent minority is still alive and well because of our judicial process. The problem with the judicial process was that we somehow thought that the judges were going to do their job of unbiased interpretation instead of agenda driven legislation from the bench.
Click to expand...

So it is agenda driven why? Because you disagree with their assessment? What does this have to do with the Constitution and it's authority?
 
friday said:
...The problem with the judicial process was that we somehow thought that the judges were going to do their job of unbiased interpretation instead of agenda driven legislation from the bench.
Click to expand...

you mean like when the SCOTUS stopped the perfectly legal & appropriate Presidential election re-count in early 2000?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The Constitution most certainly did not prevent discrimination or guarantee basic rights for all at its inception, and not for quite some time afterwards. The tyranny of the majority was alive and well for the first 100+ years.
Click to expand...

That's why I used the word "limit". And to change all that, we don't just stop enforcing laws we disagree with, we change laws to say what we like, because the Law, as interpreted in Courts and written in statutes, trumps an unspoken "natural law" defined as ""what the general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong" or "how society as a whole simply reacts" or whatever.
 
nonpareil said:
The fact remains that a law disliked by many people were enforceable, contrary to your arguement.
Click to expand...

It wasn't, not really. There was still plenty of alcohol flowing, all the law did was make it criminal for it to flow, which meant that it ended up being sold by people willing to kill their competition. The same is true of today's war on drugs.

nonpareil said:
I know I'm free to believe what I want - the Constitution protects that right - not "natural law" as you define it - which is why I'm glad that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and not "natural law" however you want to define it.
Click to expand...

On paper, the Constitution is most certainly the supreme law of the land. In a court of law, it is most certainly the supreme law of the land. What you are not acknowledging is that the vast majority of the geography of this country lies outside of courtrooms, as does the vast majority of the workings of society. The supremacy of the law is a shared hallucination, as demonstrated during every riot or other social upheaval.
 
friday said:
Tyranny over the silent minority is still alive and well because of our judicial process. The problem with the judicial process was that we somehow thought that the judges were going to do their job of unbiased interpretation instead of agenda driven legislation from the bench.
Click to expand...

You can lay that at the feet of Congress and their bull**** "litmus tests." It used to be that people were nominated for and confirmed to the bench based on things other than their views on the issues of the day.
 
nonpareil said:
That's why I used the word "limit". And to change all that, we don't just stop enforcing laws we disagree with, we change laws to say what we like, because the Law, as interpreted in Courts and written in statutes, trumps an unspoken "natural law" defined as ""what the general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong" or "how society as a whole simply reacts" or whatever.
Click to expand...

You might want to look at how many times the law of the land has effectively been changed -- in other words, the discontinuation or alteration of enforcement -- by a judge or panel of judges, and how many times the Supreme Court itself refers to natural law. :)
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
...On paper, the Constitution is most certainly the supreme law of the land. In a court of law, it is most certainly the supreme law of the land.....
Click to expand...

and unless you are a Communist, Fascist, or Anarchist looking to overthrow this country, nothing else matters.
 
whysoserious said:
So it is agenda driven why? Because you disagree with their assessment? What does this have to do with the Constitution and it's authority?
Click to expand...

No, because their assessment has not constitutional basis.
 
Thunder said:
and unless you are a Communist, Fascist, or Anarchist looking to overthrow this country, nothing else matters.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in hearing from you again in this thread, Mr. I Know The Constitution and Supreme Court Better Than You, until you get back to me on Marbury v. Madison. Every time I directly challenge you on some clearly demonstrable point you ignore me, and I have nothing to say to you in this discussion except to call you on it each time you try to change the subject.
 
Thunder said:
you mean like when the SCOTUS stopped the perfectly legal & appropriate Presidential election re-count in early 2000?
Click to expand...

I wish they hadn't of stopped it. Bush still would have won and we wouldn't have had to put up with 8...sorry, make that 11 years of liberal whining about a stolen election.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It wasn't, not really. There was still plenty of alcohol flowing, all the law did was make it criminal for it to flow, which meant that it ended up being sold by people willing to kill their competition. The same is true of today's war on drugs.
Click to expand...

So? There's still plenty of killing - are you then claiming that killing is a "natural law" not deemed wrong by the "general populace"?


On paper, the Constitution is most certainly the supreme law of the land. In a court of law, it is most certainly the supreme law of the land. What you are not acknowledging is that the vast majority of the geography of this country lies outside of courtrooms, as does the vast majority of the workings of society. The supremacy of the law is a shared hallucination, as demonstrated during every riot or other social upheaval.
Click to expand...

So is your "natural law", the point is that the Law still trumps your "natural law" because it's more likely to be enforced with penalties for violations than something as badly defined as you seem to have in your mind.
 
Thunder said:
I'm sorry, but what is your judicial background that gives you the ability to question the legal judgement of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...

Welcome to America. I can question their judgement all I want, especially when it is wrong.
 
nonpareil said:
So? There's still plenty of killing - are you then claiming that killing is a "natural law" not deemed wrong by the "general populace"?
Click to expand...

There's a significant difference between people breaking the law and widespread disregard for the law.

nonpareil said:
the point is that the Law still trumps your "natural law" because it's more likely to be enforced with penalties for violations than something as badly defined as you seem to have in your mind.
Click to expand...

Enforcement of the "Law" is easier to see, easier to define, and easier to quantify than the consequences for violating natural law -- but don't mistake that for supremacy.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You might want to look at how many times the law of the land has effectively been changed -- in other words, the discontinuation or alteration of enforcement -- by a judge or panel of judges, and how many times the Supreme Court itself refers to natural law. :)
Click to expand...

I have and I know that the Supreme Court, any court, does not define "natural law" as you have defined it, which is why I deem your definition to mean less than nothing. Natural Law is a concept of natural justice that is not just "what the general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong" or "how society as a whole simply reacts", and if you understand Common Law, you would know that it is still subjugated to statutes - so all that brings us to the beginning: that the Constitution supersede all laws in the country, that your "natural law" is an imaginary set of morality that's not enforceable on anybody.
 
friday said:
Welcome to America. I can question their judgement all I want, especially when it is wrong.
Click to expand...

oh of course you can!!

but its kinda meaningless unless you have some judicial background or standing. but still, feeel free.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
There's a significant difference between people breaking the law and widespread disregard for the law.
Click to expand...

And how are they different? And how do they justify any of your arguement?


Enforcement of the "Law" is easier to see, easier to define, and easier to quantify than the consequences for violating natural law -- but don't mistake that for supremacy.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, you have no evidence of its enforcement that's easy to see, define, or quantify, but by God it's supreme. I have heard all of that before from preachers, and vodo-artists.
 
Last edited:
nonpareil said:
I have and I know that the Supreme Court, any court, does not define "natural law" as you have defined it, which is why I deem your definition to mean less than nothing.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Where the hell do you think the "self-evident truths" of the Declaration of Independence came from? Maybe you don't like the way I'm phrasing my definition, maybe the definitions as handed down by those who came before me used loftier wording, but they all essentially boil down to the same thing.

The Court hasn't comprehensively defined natural law, even though it has referred to the concept on a number of very important occasions, because the Court has never needed to define it. It essentially amounts to what the people of the day generally see as being so obvious that a formal definition isn't required.
 
nonpareil said:
And how are they different?
Click to expand...

Illegal and enforceable -- murder. Illegal but mainly unenforceable -- sodomy.

nonpareil said:
Well, sure, you have no evidence of its enforcement that's easy to see, define, or quantify, but by God it's supreme. I have heard all of that before from preachers, and vodo-artists.
Click to expand...

I don't have to demonstrate it because it happens all around us, every single day, but I've pointed to riots and social uprisings -- those are the most powerful and most visible manifestations of the enforcement of natural law, but the fact is it happens every day between individuals over far less momentous issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom