• 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
Grim17 said:
No, it does not. You can not avoid arrest by pulling out your pocket constitution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it does and here is an example: Marijuana is illegal in the US. California has legalized it for medicinal purposes, however, since it is illegal in the US, federal agents can and do arrest people who sell and use the drug in California.

*Edit:

Funny how the crackpot side always gets vote spammed from anonymous viewers.
 
Last edited:
friday said:
For the Federal government, yes. The Constitution is the supreme law. The fact that the Federal government regularly supersedes the rights of the states, communities, religious leaderships and families only goes to show that for the Federal Government, obeying the supreme law of the land no longer holds any relevance.
Click to expand...

It isn't just that they ignore the Constitution, it's that they ignore the Constitution and aren't held responsible for it. They have exactly as much power as we let them get away with having.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I had to vote "no," but "other" would've been more to my liking.

Natural law is the supreme law. If, for example, an amendment was ratified which outlawed the use of violence in self-defense, or legalizing wholesale extermination, that would be a violation of natural law.
Click to expand...

So? Parents mutilating their children's genital would seem to be against "natural law", and yet it's done without penalty, in accordance with the law of the country in some places.

"Natural Law" is a made up law subjective from person to person and non-binding on anyone, the Law is a made up law that is binding and enforced by society or government. The Law trumps "natural law".
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
wrong. the Constitution is the supreme law of the land for ALL govt. Federal, state, and local.
Click to expand...

Someone could argue that with the 14th amendment, but so far the 14th has not been applied to the entirety of the rest of the constitution. Otherwise states could not have individual gun laws for example.
 
friday said:
Someone could argue that with the 14th amendment, but so far the 14th has not been applied to the entirety of the rest of the constitution. Otherwise states could not have individual gun laws for example.
Click to expand...


No, anyone can say that for any part of the Constitution - the 1th, the 4th, all of the articles, all of it are the supreme law since no law can violate them.

I'm disturbed that so many people voted no.
 
nonpareil said:
No, anyone can say that for any part of the Constitution - the 1th, the 4th, all of the articles, all of it are the supreme law since no law can violate them.

I'm disturbed that so many people voted no.
Click to expand...

Look and see how many "people" voted no. The poll should actually be reverse, it just got spammed by unregistered voters or people who logged out. (It's really 17-4 in favor of "Yes").
 
nonpareil said:
So? Parents mutilating their children's genital would seem to be against "natural law", and yet it done without penalty, in accordance with the law of the country in some places.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about America and penile circumcision, you would be mistaken (see below).

nonpareil said:
"Natural Law" is a made up law subjective from person to person and non-binding on anyone, the Law is a made up law that is binding and enforced by society or government. The Law trumps "natural law".
Click to expand...

Natural law consists of what the general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong. Where the "Law" walks all over natural law, you will find that the "Law" loses its credibility and enforceability.
 
nonpareil said:
No, anyone can say that for any part of the Constitution - the 1th, the 4th, all of the articles, all of it are the supreme law since no law can violate them.

I'm disturbed that so many people voted no.
Click to expand...

The real numbers are...

Yes.
Arcana XV
Bob Blaylock
Boring Bob
CriticalThought
friday
Higgins86
jamesrage
Jucon
Juiposa
Krhazy
LaMidRighter
Mickey Shane
nonpareil
SmokeAndMirrors
spud_meister
whysoserious
Your Star

No.
DaveFagan
Keridan
Phys251
TacticalEvilDan
 
nonpareil said:
No, anyone can say that for any part of the Constitution - the 1th, the 4th, all of the articles, all of it are the supreme law since no law can violate them.

I'm disturbed that so many people voted no.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment was the one designed to actually make the rest of the constitution supersede state law after the civil war. However, it has only been applied through court cases to portions of the constitution. Again, why some states have restrictive gun laws when the constitution says that the government cannot restrict the right to keep and bear arms. If the constitution was the supreme law superseding the states, then no states could have permit or conceal carry laws.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Natural law consists of what the general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong. Where the "Law" walks all over natural law, you will find that the "Law" loses its credibility and enforceability.
Click to expand...

Public opinion is not the supreme law of the land.
 
friday said:
The 14th amendment was the one designed to actually make the rest of the constitution supersede state law after the civil war. However, it has only been applied through court cases to portions of the constitution. Again, why some states have restrictive gun laws when the constitution says that the government cannot restrict the right to keep and bear arms. If the constitution was the supreme law superseding the states, then no states could have permit or conceal carry laws.
Click to expand...

That doesn't speak to the supremacy of the Constitution so much as it does that it's subject to interpretation.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If you're talking about America and penile circumcision, you would be mistaken (see below).

Natural law consists of what the general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong. Where the "Law" walks all over natural law, you will find that the "Law" loses its credibility and enforceability.
Click to expand...

There is no punishment for breaking natural law on its own and there is no direct requirement that human law must follow natural law (only that if human law does not follow natural law, bad **** happens). Also, natural law is subjective, since each person has their own ideas about morality - for instance, I would guess there are many who feel abortion goes against natural law.
 
friday said:
...If the constitution was the supreme law superseding the states, then no states could have permit or conceal carry laws.
Click to expand...

your understanding of the Constitution and the Supreme Court is certainly lacking.

it it is the responciblity of the SCOTUS to interprate the Constitution. And they have found that certain common-sense gun laws, such as preventing the mentally ill and felons from owning weapons, are within the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

On a side note, I find it very troubling that LIBERALS are having to educate CONSERVATIVES, as to the true meaning & significance of the Constitution. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Why is it that Liberals are defending the supremacy of the Constitution while Conservatives are minimizing & denying it???
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
That doesn't speak to the supremacy of the Constitution so much as it does that it's subject to interpretation.
Click to expand...

"Subject to interpretation" is how those in power change the law without bothering to get the votes necessary to actually change the law. There is nothing in the second amendment that would allow for conceal carry laws. It's pretty straight forward. But it is also a restriction on the Federal Government that should not be placed on the states, hence the tenth amendment.
 
Thunder said:
your understanding of the Constitution and the Supreme Court is certainly lacking.

it it is the responciblity of the SCOTUS to interprate the Constitution. And they have found that certain common-sense gun laws, such as preventing the mentally ill and felons from owning weapons, are within the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

On a side note, I find it very troubling that LIBERALS are having to educate CONSERVATIVES, as to the true meaning & significance of the Constitution. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Why is it that Liberals are defending the supremacy of the Constitution while Conservatives are minimizing & denying it???
Click to expand...

So then you would agree that state conceal carry laws are unconstitutional?
 
friday said:
"Subject to interpretation" is how those in power change the law without bothering to get the votes necessary to actually change the law. There is nothing in the second amendment that would allow for conceal carry laws....
Click to expand...

the Supreme Court of the United States, disagrees.

the question now is this: do you or do you not, respect the practises and ways of our Country?
 
whysoserious said:
There is no punishment for breaking natural law on its own
Click to expand...

Sure there is. We've seen riots and mob reactions throughout human history which testify to the consequences for flagrantly violating natural law.

whysoserious said:
and there is no direct requirement that human law must follow natural law (only that if human law does not follow natural law, bad **** happens).
Click to expand...

Sure there is, that very requirement being the bad stuff that happens -- chaos and disregard for the rule of law.

whysoserious said:
Also, natural law is subjective, since each person has their own ideas about morality - for instance, I would guess there are many who feel abortion goes against natural law.
Click to expand...

It is subject to change as society changes, but since natural law is primarily enforced by society as a whole, it's less about the individual opinion and more about the general agreement.
 
whysoserious said:
Do you understand what Judicial Review is?
Click to expand...

The purpose of the courts is not to be an oligarchy of nine kings who start with the constitution and legislate from there. So no, your understanding of judicial review and mine are not the same. However, when it comes to the fourteenth amendment, it has not been applied by the courts to all of the constitution at this point, which is why the states can have conceal carry laws and the federal government does not. As far as interpreting the 2nd amendment, read it. It's pretty straight forward.
 
Thunder said:
the Supreme Court of the United States, disagrees.

the question now is this: do you or do you not, respect the practises and ways of our Country?
Click to expand...

interesting question. Let me turn it around on you. Should Elana Kagan recuse herself from the Obamacare ruling?
 
Thunder said:
your understanding of the Constitution and the Supreme Court is certainly lacking.

it it is the responciblity of the SCOTUS to interprate the Constitution.
Click to expand...

If by "responsibility" you mean "self-appointed authority," then you are correct -- Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :mrgreen:

Thunder said:
On a side note, I find it very troubling that LIBERALS are having to educate CONSERVATIVES, as to the true meaning & significance of the Constitution. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Why is it that Liberals are defending the supremacy of the Constitution while Conservatives are minimizing & denying it???
Click to expand...

If by "educate" you mean "pontificate," then both sides have been doing that since before there was a Constitution to "educate" about. :lol:
 
friday said:
"Subject to interpretation" is how those in power change the law without bothering to get the votes necessary to actually change the law. There is nothing in the second amendment that would allow for conceal carry laws. It's pretty straight forward. But it is also a restriction on the Federal Government that should not be placed on the states, hence the tenth amendment.
Click to expand...

That's your interpretation. Others would disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom