• 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
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.

A cops warnings have the power of law, as a cop is essentially entrusted with power under the law to be the defacto abjudicator
on site in regards to the law. His words are not "law" in the binding sense, however his words are backed and empowered by law. If a cop gives you a warning, lets say theoritically, to move away from an area due to a violation of the law he is within his rights to do so and is doing so with the full power vested upon him by the law. You can't hold up your constituion and go "NUH UH! Because this says I don't have to" because you have zero power to interprit the constitution in a legal sense. IE, HIS interpritation of the law...at that given point...is more accurately the "law" than YOUR interpritation of the constitution at that point.

Interestingly though, you are arguing a philosophical position that all unconstitutional laws are lawful until they are found to be unconstitutional by the courts.

Actually, I'm arguing that all laws should be treated as constitutional, and those carrying out the laws be viewed as performing in line with the constitution, up until such a point that they're ruled unconstitutional. Should such happen then retoractive action, such as freeing someone from prison or removing an infraction from someones record, could and likely would be appropriate. However, the only way to truly and LEGALLY know if a law is or isn't unconstitutional is for it to be ruled upon by a court. Anything else is simply an unsubstantiated opinion holding no legal status.

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.

Sure, every citizen is entitled to assess whether or not a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. However, their assessment is worth about as much as their opinion on whether or not the new Britney Spears song is good. They're free to assess it. However, unless they are able to prove their assessment is correct to a judge their assessment has absolutely zero baring on the law or the legality of action taken against them.

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.

I would too. The difference is you'd sit there pouting that the Cop doesn't have the authority to do it because its unconstitutional and that he's acting illegally. I'd accept the fact that its illegal, that the cop is given the authority to act within the laws as they are passed and on the books and are currently upheld as correct, and accept that he's within his authority to arrest me and I will comply as I await my legal right to challenge the charge I view as unconstitutional in court.

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.

Hmm, nope. I see conservatives all the time trying to take action to cause the courts to overturn something as unconstitutional. Look at various state action aimed at trying to make Roe v. Wade relooked at for example. I don't think its illegitimate to stand in violation of the law in order to ATTMEPT to get it overturned. What I think is illegitimate is pretending that ones interpritation of the constitution is infallable and that those that are enforcing the laws as they are on the books and have currently been upheld have no power, their words mean nothing, and they should be condemned or besmirched for enforcing the laws based on that over inflated egotistical belief that their view of the constitution is unquestionably the correct one.
 
"In Pursuance thereof"

Why is that phrase so easily overlooked? What do you think that means?

The same thing I've said from the very beginning. The constitution is the foundation for which the LAWS of the country must be built upon; that laws must fall within the scope of allowance set down by the provisions of the constitution.

I'm not quite sure why you're chastising people for overlooking things when you're asking me a question about something you've obviously overlooked when reading my posts. From post one I've stated that very thing.
 
A cops warnings have the power of law, as a cop is essentially entrusted with power under the law to be the defacto abjudicator
on site in regards to the law. His words are not "law" in the binding sense, however his words are backed and empowered by law. If a cop gives you a warning, lets say theoritically, to move away from an area due to a violation of the law he is within his rights to do so and is doing so with the full power vested upon him by the law. You can't hold up your constituion and go "NUH UH! Because this says I don't have to" because you have zero power to interprit the constitution in a legal sense. IE, HIS interpritation of the law...at that given point...is more accurately the "law" than YOUR interpritation of the constitution at that point.

I have every right to refuse to comply with an officer's warnings and he has every right to arrest me for doing so. I have a duty as a responsible citizen not to comply with unlawful laws and he has the responsibility to enforce them until they are found unlawful by the courts. We can be perfectly respectful of each other in the process. Not choosing to comply with the law is not an act of disrespect to him, but an act of respect to the Constitution of this country. If I am wrong, then I have to face the consequences. An officer never has to face the consequences of enforcing an unlawful law.

Sure, every citizen is entitled to assess whether or not a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. However, their assessment is worth about as much as their opinion on whether or not the new Britney Spears song is good. They're free to assess it. However, unless they are able to prove their assessment is correct to a judge their assessment has absolutely zero baring on the law or the legality of action taken against them.

Absolutely. It is only my opinion until the courts say otherwise. Of course, I have every right to bring it to the attention of the courts by not complying with it, and I would argue that it is my duty to do so.
 
The same thing I've said from the very beginning. The constitution is the foundation for which the LAWS of the country must be built upon; that laws must fall within the scope of allowance set down by the provisions of the constitution.

I'm not quite sure why you're chastising people for overlooking things when you're asking me a question about something you've obviously overlooked when reading my posts. From post one I've stated that very thing.

Sigh...you changed your position and now you are reverting back to a prior position you had in this thread.
 
Sigh...you changed your position and now you are reverting back to a prior position you had in this thread.

My position has been the same throughout the thread.

In a generalized sense you could say its the "supreme law of the land" in so much that its the foundation of our laws. In the sense you were seemingly using it in the thread that spurred this one, then no it would not be.

Where has my argument veered from that generalized statement?
 
My position has been the same throughout the thread.

In a generalized sense you could say its the "supreme law of the land" in so much that its the foundation of our laws. In the sense you were seemingly using it in the thread that spurred this one, then no it would not be.

Where has my argument veered from that generalized statement?

Sigh...

...the "Supreme Law of the Land" is the Constitution + Laws + Treaties.

You placed Federal law and treaties on the same level as the Constitution. Federal Law and Treaties have to be "in pursuance thereof" the Constitution in order to be placed on the same level as the Constitution.
 
I have every right to refuse to comply with an officer's warnings and he has every right to arrest me for doing so.

Absolutlely. Never said you HAD to comply with an officer's warnings. I'm just saying don't try and tell me that its some kind of fact that your refusal to comply was actually more constitutional and more in line with "the law".

I have a duty as a responsible citizen not to comply with unlawful laws and he has the responsibility to enforce them until they are found unlawful by the courts.

Well, I disagree here. I don't think a citizen has a DUTY to not comply with unlawful laws. I just think its within their right to non-comply as long as their non-compliance does not violate the rights of another and with the understanding that taking such action is inviting and accepting the immediete negative actions that will come from it.

We can be perfectly respectful of each other in the process.

True, that is possible.

Not choosing to comply with the law is not an act of disrespect to him, but an act of respect to the Constitution of this country.

The act of choosing is not inherently disrespectful. That doesn't mean the means of expressing it and the actions taken after that point aren't.

If I am wrong, then I have to face the consequences.

Actually, regardless as to whether or not you're right or wrong, you have to face SOME consequences. For example, if your non-compliance leads to you being arrested, you have to face and accept the consequence that your action is landing you in jail temporarily even before you're proven wrong or right.

An officer never has to face the consequences of enforcing an unlawful law.

Correct, an officer doesn't face consequences for enforcing UNCONSTITUTIONAL law, unless in doing so he actually acted unlawfully in the process. For instance, if a "protest zone" was passed into law and he gave you an order not to protest outside of it and you resisted and he arrested you, and later the "protest zone" is found unconstitutional, he shouldn't face consequences for enforcing it. However, if he beat you repeatedly while you gave no physical resistance, he should face conseqeunces for that because HE was acting illegally rather than acting legally enforcing an unconstitutional law.
 
Sigh...you changed your position and now you are reverting back to a prior position you had in this thread.

I was stating that seems to be what the Constitution itself states on the matter.

I still would argue, in a general sense, that stating the Constitution is the "SLOTL" (because I don't want to keep typing that) is still reasonable since its still the foundation for which our Laws are built. However, I was just pointing out that even the Constitution doesn't agree with this notion that its somehow a forgone unquestionable fact that the constitution and only the constitution is the SLOTL. It seems to imply that it simply is one part of it.
 
Absolutlely. Never said you HAD to comply with an officer's warnings. I'm just saying don't try and tell me that its some kind of fact that your refusal to comply was actually more constitutional and more in line with "the law".



Well, I disagree here. I don't think a citizen has a DUTY to not comply with unlawful laws. I just think its within their right to non-comply as long as their non-compliance does not violate the rights of another and with the understanding that taking such action is inviting and accepting the immediete negative actions that will come from it.



True, that is possible.



The act of choosing is not inherently disrespectful. That doesn't mean the means of expressing it and the actions taken after that point aren't.



Actually, regardless as to whether or not you're right or wrong, you have to face SOME consequences. For example, if your non-compliance leads to you being arrested, you have to face and accept the consequence that your action is landing you in jail temporarily even before you're proven wrong or right.



Correct, an officer doesn't face consequences for enforcing UNCONSTITUTIONAL law, unless in doing so he actually acted unlawfully in the process. For instance, if a "protest zone" was passed into law and he gave you an order not to protest outside of it and you resisted and he arrested you, and later the "protest zone" is found unconstitutional, he shouldn't face consequences for enforcing it. However, if he beat you repeatedly while you gave no physical resistance, he should face conseqeunces for that because HE was acting illegally rather than acting legally enforcing an unconstitutional law.

I don't think we are in disagreement on these facts. I think we just have a differing philosophical position on the role of a responsible citizen.

I see civil disobedience of unlawful laws as a duty, as long as it is done respectfully. We may differ somewhat in opinion on what constitutes "respect" in these matters.
 
Last edited:
I was stating that seems to be what the Constitution itself states on the matter.

I still would argue, in a general sense, that stating the Constitution is the "SLOTL" (because I don't want to keep typing that) is still reasonable since its still the foundation for which our Laws are built. However, I was just pointing out that even the Constitution doesn't agree with this notion that its somehow a forgone unquestionable fact that the constitution and only the constitution is the SLOTL. It seems to imply that it simply is one part of it.

That would be correct. All federal laws and treaties that are in pursuance of the Constitution are part of the Supreme Law of the land.
 
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".

dispute all you want.....

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
 
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.

You are wrong. The police officially represent the law to the people and are fully authorized to do so. Society has agreed that right or wrong, people are obligated/required to respect and abide by the interpretation and enforcement of the law by police at point of contact (within reason of course). Disputing police interpretation and enforcement of the law at point of contact, is in of itself, against the law.

The legality and Constitutionality of the law, or the interpretation or enforcement by police at the point of contact of the law, is strictly a judicial matter.



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.

That doesn't change the fact that a persons individual interpretation of the law, does not change the fact that the law exists, and that police are not only authorized, but duty-bound to enforce those laws... Nor does it change the fact that citizens are still obligated to respect and abide by police enforcement of the law.

Here's an example... Let's say you disagree with a law and refuse to comply with police. That leads to a physical confrontation with police when they attempt to enforce that law and you are arrested and charged with assault on a police officer. Even if you challenge the law in court, and the judge agrees with you and the law is repealed, you will still be tried and held accountable for assaulting a police officer. The ends do not justify the means my friend, and that's because whether a law is right or wrong... Constitutional or unconstitutional... you must abide by police and law enforcement.

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.

Not true, but that isn't the issue here... Those kids weren't protesting to have the law they were violating overturned, they were protesting the actions of the university. Don't convolute things or attempt to turn this into something it's not.
 
You are wrong. The police officially represent the law to the people and are fully authorized to do so. Society has agreed that right or wrong, people are obligated/required to respect and abide by the interpretation and enforcement of the law by police at point of contact (within reason of course). Disputing police interpretation and enforcement of the law at point of contact, is in of itself, against the law.

I disagree. Police can arrest me if they feel I am not abiding by the law, but they are not the law. I am under no obligation to comply with police as long as I am content to deal with the consequences of being arrested.
 
Last edited:
You are wrong. The police officially represent the law to the people and are fully authorized to do so. Society has agreed that right or wrong, people are obligated/required to respect and abide by the interpretation and enforcement of the law by police at point of contact (within reason of course). Disputing police interpretation and enforcement of the law at point of contact, is in of itself, against the law.

The legality and Constitutionality of the law, or the interpretation or enforcement by police at the point of contact of the law, is strictly a judicial matter.





That doesn't change the fact that a persons individual interpretation of the law, does not change the fact that the law exists, and that police are not only authorized, but duty-bound to enforce those laws... Nor does it change the fact that citizens are still obligated to respect and abide by police enforcement of the law.

Here's an example... Let's say you disagree with a law and refuse to comply with police. That leads to a physical confrontation with police when they attempt to enforce that law and you are arrested and charged with assault on a police officer. Even if you challenge the law in court, and the judge agrees with you and the law is repealed, you will still be tried and held accountable for assaulting a police officer. The ends do not justify the means my friend, and that's because whether a law is right or wrong... Constitutional or unconstitutional... you must abide by police and law enforcement.



Not true, but that isn't the issue here... Those kids weren't protesting to have the law they were violating overturned, they were protesting the actions of the university. Don't convolute things or attempt to turn this into something it's not.

if the ends don't justify the means, why do you believe it was fine to use pepper spray? removing the protestors (ends) in no way justifies the means.
 
dispute all you want.....

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Nothing like ignoring context to score political points... I guess dishonesty is one of those "the ends justifies the means" things with the left that they are perfectly willing to engage in. That's not how I choose to be, but to each his own I guess.
 
Nothing like ignoring context to score political points... I guess dishonesty is one of those "the ends justifies the means" things with the left that they are perfectly willing to engage in. That's not how I choose to be, but to each his own I guess.

Given that you misunderstood the context of my post, I don't think you have much room to talk.
 
You are wrong. The police officially represent the law to the people and are fully authorized to do so. Society has agreed that right or wrong, people are obligated/required to respect and abide by the interpretation and enforcement of the law by police at point of contact (within reason of course). Disputing police interpretation and enforcement of the law at point of contact, is in of itself, against the law.

The legality and Constitutionality of the law, or the interpretation or enforcement by police at the point of contact of the law, is strictly a judicial matter.

Police are not the law, that couldn't be further from the truth. It may be wise to not disobey the police in certain situations, since they are clearly in the authority, but when a police officer disobeys the law, he or she is just as culpable as any other individual. That's why these things happen:


Officer Sued in Death
Officer Sued in Federal Court
Family Wins Taser-Death Lawsuit

You can sue a police officer when he/she breaks the law, and if a police officer can break the law, then their word cannot possibly be the law.
 
Last edited:
if the ends don't justify the means, why do you believe it was fine to use pepper spray? removing the protestors (ends) in no way justifies the means.

That of course has nothing to do with the question at hand on this thread, but I'll tell you what... Why don't you tell me what you think the police should have done, and then I will be better able to explain my position. You see, every time I explain my position, I'm hit with "they should have...". So if you tell me how you feel they should have handled things, I will either agree with you, or explain the flaw in your thinking, without having to play debate ping pong that always seem to lead nowhere.
 
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...

/end thread

Let's get alittle clarification on the above, shall we?

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Towhich I will modify my answer as...
Yes, with the following understanding:

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 yes, the Constitution is our nation's supreme law of the land because it lays the foundation for all other laws written by Congress, soverign states and local municipalities.

Again, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. Except I'm really not; I was only half-wrong. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
dispute all you want.....

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Um, Liblady...

If you're going by this as proof, then the ansewr would be no to both Grim AND to the OP.

According to what you quoted, the Constitution is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land.

The Constitution AND the laws of the united states AND all the treaties of the United States are the Supreme Law of the Land.
 
Um, Liblady...

If you're going by this as proof, then the ansewr would be no to both Grim AND to the OP.

According to what you quoted, the Constitution is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land.

The Constitution AND the laws of the united states AND all the treaties of the United States are the Supreme Law of the Land.

Did you miss this "and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof" meaning laws made IN ACCORDANCE with the constitution, thus subjugating them to the constitution.
 
Did you miss this "and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof" meaning laws made IN ACCORDANCE with the constitution, thus subjugating them to the constitution.

Didn't miss it at all, nor did I say that the laws in question wouldn't be subjugated to the constitution. However, the quote she stated clearly lays out that it is not JUST the constitution, but the laws (That yes, are made in accordance with what the constitution lays out) and treaties are ALSO part of what makes up the SLOTL.

Just going off her quote, since she didn't deem it important enough to add anything more and felt that the quote alone stands on its own, to say that the constitution...and just the constitution...is the SLOTL would be incorrect. Based on the quote, the SLOTL is the Constitution, Laws that adhere to the Constitution, and Treaties.
 
If that is the way you wish to define it then I question the constitutionality of police pepper spraying nonviolent protesters.

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.

"The law of the land", as you put it, is a list of rules regarding what the government may or may not do. There are no laws in the Constitution.
 
"The law of the land", as you put it, is a list of rules regarding what the government may or may not do. There are no laws in the Constitution.

If the Constitution forms the framework for all Government within the US, in fact if it is the framework upon which the nation was built, and all laws written and enforced by any level of government subject to that framework must comply with the strictures of the Constitution, how is it not the supreme/final word for all other laws? Failure to comply with the strictures of the Constitution makes any inferior law null and void, ergo the Constitution is supreme.
 
If the Constitution forms the framework for all Government within the US, in fact if it is the framework upon which the nation was built, and all laws written and enforced by any level of government subject to that framework must comply with the strictures of the Constitution, how is it not the supreme/final word for all other laws? Failure to comply with the strictures of the Constitution makes any inferior law null and void, ergo the Constitution is supreme.

It is the supreme final word... it is just not the law of the land. Not law as in a legal sense, as was suggested.
 
Back
Top Bottom