• 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
nonpareil said:
Your guarantee don't mean anything to me. There have been society that do not prohibit murders against certain class of people throughout history. Common sense is just another vague concept which is prone to mistakes.
Click to expand...

Hey, look at that! Natural law in action! Those societies generally agreed those murders were okay, and presto!
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Natural law has come up in a number of cases decided by a number of Supreme Courts. A quick Google search on "natural law supreme court" should light up your screen with examples.
Click to expand...

Why should I go on a goose chase for you, when your arguement is so weak?


There are many ways to say the same thing. All I'm saying is you can't put my words in quotes and ask when the Supreme Court has ever said this or that exact thing.
Click to expand...

I'm asking where the supreme court has said anything even relating to what you mean. To quote how people define a term, it is only honest to quote the whole thing. If you can't support what you says when it's quoted in full for you, of what value is anything you say?

That seemed to be your argument.
Click to expand...

Then you need to keep my posts in full and read for comprehension.


The fact that something is codified in the letter of the law doesn't mean it's governed by the law.
Click to expand...

In the US, it does.

People are going to defend themselves whether or not the law gives them permission.
Click to expand...

People are going to kill whether the law gives them permission to do so or not. The point is that they get punished if they go against the Law - which is what makes the Law superior to your "natural law".

Self-defense goes back to our basic instincts, and I can't think of something as self-evident as something you do without even consciously thinking about it.
Click to expand...

Consciously thinking or not has nothing to do with anything. And "basic instincts" is another vague term. Really, you should try supporting your own arguement instead of making it sound weaker and weaker.
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
Hey, look at that! Natural law in action! Those societies generally agreed those murders were okay, and presto!
Click to expand...

Another preacher-like arguement. When out of arguements, just claim that God is at work.
 
nonpareil said:
Why should I go on a goose chase for you, when your arguement is so weak?
Click to expand...

You're asking me to prove something which is easily and readily accessible by anyone with an Internet connection and a web browser. Apparently your goal is to argue for the sake of arguing, because the concept of natural law is something that doesn't sit well with you. You're more comfortable assigning it the same credibility you do religion -- which is pretty funny, since I pointed out some obvious real-world examples of natural law in this very thread.

I'm thinking those posts pre-dated your entry to this thread, and you missed them -- because the only other conclusion I can draw from the way you seem to have missed them is far less charitable.
 
whysoserious said:
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?
Click to expand...
Two examples of agenda would be 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.
 
Thunder said:
when one makes a claim, the mature & responsible thing to do is to back it up.

will you back up your claim?
Click to expand...

I thought I had, but I guess you need to be led by the hand. Here you go:

This 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.
Click to expand...

Marbury v Madison - Court case of Marbury v Madison

Your turn.
 
jamesrage said:
The US constitution is the supreme law of the land.If a law that is created violates the constitution then it is invalid. So it seems pretty straight forward that it is the supreme law of the land. If it wasn't the supreme law of the land then why have the S.C. decide if something is constitutional?
Click to expand...
Your theory is based upon semantics; one could say it is the supreme law (framework, or the buck stops here), while one could also say it is not (there is no prohibition against murder, for example, which -- until somewhat recently -- had no specific federal prohibition at all).

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).
 
CriticalThought said:
[...] Technically though, the Constitution is the "law of the land" as is stated in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. All laws must be "pursuant thereof" the Constitution. If you wish to define that as a "guideline" rather than Constitutional law, then that is simply the semantic game of the day.
Click to expand...
Semantics are indeed in play here; while the constitution may indeed be the 'controlling authority' there are many issues it does not touch upon but which are regulated by not only the federal government, but also by the states.

The Supremacy Clause simply states that if a state law conflicts with a federal law, then the federal law trumps the state law[sup][1][/sup] (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]
 
No.

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.
 
Thunder said:
when one makes a claim, the mature & responsible thing to do is to back it up.

will you back up your claim?
Click to expand...

TacticalEvilDan said:
I thought I had, but I guess you need to be led by the hand. Here you go:



Marbury v Madison - Court case of Marbury v Madison

Your turn.
Click to expand...

So, four hours have gone by, you've made over 50 posts elsewhere on the forum, and you still have neglected to come back here and back up your assertion.

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. :lol:
 
TOJ said:
The USA Constitution laws are only what five old men and old women say they are at any particular point in time.

.
Click to expand...

Even a broke clock is right twice a day.
 
Wow, the results of this poll totally shocked me! :shock:
 
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
Click to expand...

/end thread
 
nonpareil said:
The Constitution governs the government, statutes and common laws govern the individuals and institutions. The constitution is not a "guideline or principle" that governments can just follow or not, it's binding
Click to expand...

You argument is all based off the assumption that my statement suggested that it was non-binding.

The Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land" in the sense that its the foundation upon which the United States of America's Laws are made...IE, it's the law that governs the governments creation of laws that government the people. It is not the "Supreme Law of the Land" in the sense that the original poster was apparently inspired to post this thread in which it was implied that somehow an individual citizens interpritation of the constitution (Which is, frankly, worthless in a legal sense) is somehow more the "law" than a police officers actions regarding laws on the books. Stating that a Cop is acting "illegally" because the "Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land" and YOU think the thing they're doing is unconstitutional is not a legitimate fact nor is it an accurate representation of how the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The cops words at that point in time absolutely are more in line and more empowered by the law than your own personal interpritation of the Constitution up until such point that a judge rules in your favor.

So in a general sense, the answer is yes. In the way the OP was originally intending in the thread that spawned this and that he's now attempting to use this poll to justify his correctness on, it does not.
 
No real desire to read 15 pages of postings. How can anyone dispute the obvious? The Constitution is the yardstick by which all other laws are measured. Should they not measure up to the standards and requirements of the Constitution they are struck down, or modified to comply. How is that not "Supreme" law.
 
snilloctjc said:
No real desire to read 15 pages of postings. How can anyone dispute the obvious? The Constitution is the yardstick by which all other laws are measured. Should they not measure up to the standards and requirements of the Constitution they are struck down, or modified to comply. How is that not "Supreme" law.
Click to expand...
You should have read the 15 pages ;)
 
American said:
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
Click to expand...
/end thread
Click to expand...
You need to parse better. To wit:

1. This Constitution,
2. and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
3. and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,

shall be the supreme Law of the Land
Click to expand...

And then explain, rather than copy-and-paste, why certain states/cities are allowed to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
 
snilloctjc said:
No real desire to read 15 pages of postings. How can anyone dispute the obvious? The Constitution is the yardstick by which all other laws are measured. Should they not measure up to the standards and requirements of the Constitution they are struck down, or modified to comply. How is that not "Supreme" law.
Click to expand...

All you need to read is page 1 to understand this debate.

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING...

This entire thread was based on a dispute between CT and I on another thread about a statement he made. I suggest you read Zyphlin's post on the first page to fully understand the flaw in CT's beliefs, and why myself and others dispute the premise "The US Constitution the Supreme Law of the United States".
 
Grim17 said:
Since I am the one who inspired this thread, I think I should make things clear. You made the following statement pertaining to the pepper spraying incident that took place yesterday:



That is false. The police do not refer to the US Constitution to determine what is and isn't legal. They refer to the statutes from a city, state, federal, etc.. Those are the laws we all are expected to follow, and police are duty bound to enforce.

The constitution is not a set of laws, but rather a set of rules and guidelines used to fashion our laws. Our laws must be in compliance with the constitution, otherwise they are not laws. Many laws throughout our history have been made and enforced that violate the constitution, but because they were not challenged for their constitutionality at the time of passing, they were considered legal and were enforced. When people challenge the constitutionality of a law, it is then the job of our judicial system to determine it's compliance with the constitution.

For example... You can not say what you want, anywhere you want, at any time you want, and claim the legal right to do so under the constitution's right to free speech. If that were the case, you could break into my home, enter my bedroom at 2am and start reading the bible to me because I didn't attend church, and I would have no legal recourse.
Click to expand...

Does the highlighted and underlined sentence in your post pretty much acknowledge that The Constitution is the supreme law of the land? If all laws must comply with the Constitution isn't that saying it trumps all others? Even if you say only when challenged.
 
I believe Grim has acknowledged that in a generalized sense of its supremacy due to it essentially serving as the laws governing government in making laws that govern the people. Grim's argument that it isn't is in regards to the context the OP was using it in the thread that spurred this one, in which he was arguing that a Cop taking action with regards to the law isn't "The law", but rather the Constitution is the law because its the "Supreme Law of the Land". Essentially trying to say that since the Constitution is the "Supreme Law", and HE felt something was in violation of the constitution, then the Cop's actions regarding the law didn't matter becuase they were overruled by nature of the supremacy of the Constitution.

IE, somehow going "But I say the constitution says I can do it and its the supreme law so the cop is wrong!" is a factually correct statement, rather than an argument that has 0 legal standing and legitimacy until such point that a judge renders an opinion favoring it.
 
American said:
/end thread
Click to expand...

Interesting. So the Constitution itself doesn't even agree that its singularly the "Supreme Law of the Land". Rather that the "Supreme Law of the Land" is the Constitution + Laws + Treaties.
 
Zyphlin said:
I believe Grim has acknowledged that in a generalized sense of its supremacy due to it essentially serving as the laws governing government in making laws that govern the people. Grim's argument that it isn't is in regards to the context the OP was using it in the thread that spurred this one, in which he was arguing that a Cop taking action with regards to the law isn't "The law", but rather the Constitution is the law because its the "Supreme Law of the Land". Essentially trying to say that since the Constitution is the "Supreme Law", and HE felt something was in violation of the constitution, then the Cop's actions regarding the law didn't matter becuase they were overruled by nature of the supremacy of the Constitution.

IE, somehow going "But I say the constitution says I can do it and its the supreme law so the cop is wrong!" is a factually correct statement, rather than an argument that has 0 legal standing and legitimacy until such point that a judge renders an opinion favoring it.
Click to expand...

If that were the context in which I was arguing, then I would agree.

However, grim's argument was that the cop's warnings were law and had to be followed as law. A cop's word is not law, the precedents and laws that the cop follows are law, and those must be in pursuance of the Constitution to be lawful.

Interestingly though, you are arguing a philosophical position that all unconstitutional laws are lawful until they are found to be unconstitutional by the courts. In that sense I disagree. While the courts are the final arbiter of the law, each individual citizen in this country is responsible for assessing whether laws are lawful or unlawful. I would gladly go to jail in protest of a law that is unconstitutional in order to have it tossed out by the courts. However, I would have to be incredibly certain of it.

This seems to be the sticking point between conservatives and libertarians on this issue. Conservatives seem to argue that it is not a legitimate action to stand in violation of a law in order to have it overturned by the courts. Conservatives seem to think the only legitimate course of action is to have the law repealed by Congress. I may be generalizing, but that seems to be the big beef the right has with movements that utilize civil disobedience.
 
Zyphlin said:
Interesting. So the Constitution itself doesn't even agree that its singularly the "Supreme Law of the Land". Rather that the "Supreme Law of the Land" is the Constitution + Laws + Treaties.
Click to expand...

"In Pursuance thereof"

Why is that phrase so easily overlooked? What do you think that means?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom