• 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

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Perhaps I am mistaken but I was taught in my civics class that the United States Constitution was the supreme law of this nation.

Other members of this forum seem to think the Constitution is not the law, but just a set of guidelines and rights we all have as American citizens.

What do you think?
 
Perhaps I am mistaken but I was taught in my civics class that the United States Constitution was the supreme law of this nation.

Other members of this forum seem to think the Constitution is not the law, but just a set of guidelines and rights we all have as American citizens.

What do you think?

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:

The Law is the Constitution of the United States, not whatever a police officer says.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
If you wish to define that as a "guideline" rather than Constitutional law, then that is simply the semantic game of the day.

The semantics is on your part, not mine.

This from businessdictionary.com:

Constitutional Law
Body of law derived from a country's written constitution. It lays down and guides the duties and powers of the government, and the duties and rights of its citizens and residents.
 
The semantics is on your part, not mine.

This from businessdictionary.com:

Constitutional Law
Body of law derived from a country's written constitution. It lays down and guides the duties and powers of the government, and the duties and rights of its citizens and residents.

You should probably look up the definition of "fundamental law" while you are cruising around such a definitive source as "businessdictionary.com".
 
You should probably look up the definition of "fundamental law" while you are cruising around such a definitive source as "businessdictionary.com".

This whole argument is based on your statement:

The Law is the Constitution of the United States, not whatever a police officer says.

You know as well as I do, that the constitution isn't the law in this case. The local statutes are the laws, laws that conform to the rules and guidlines set forth by the constituion, as all federal, state and local laws are.
 
I wonder who voted no?...;)
 
Perhaps I am mistaken but I was taught in my civics class that the United States Constitution was the supreme law of this nation.

Other members of this forum seem to think the Constitution is not the law, but just a set of guidelines and rights we all have as American citizens.

What do you think?

In the manner in which you are attempting to imply you mean with regards to "supreme law of the land", no. Colloquially its referred to as the "supreme law of the land". It's called such because, as the foundation of our governmental structure, all our legal system is built upon it. Laws that are not built upon that foundation are subject to collapse, as they lack the necessary structure to remain standing. In a sense you could state its the "laws" of the law, but doing so would be rather abstract and very much akin to saying guidelines.

However, the constitution itself doesn't really represent "law". Note we state when someone violates the Constitution they are acting "unconstitutionally" not "illegally". It is not illegal for the government to violate an individuals free speech; it is unconstitutional to do so. The "laws" are things passed by congress and signed by the President. Those laws can be judged based on their "Constitutionality" when it comes to the Constitution

You said "the law" not "a law". At best, the Constitution is "laws" in the generic sense...IE a set of principles or rules with authority under the state with regards to how people (in this case specifically the government) act. However, it wouldn't be "the law" in the sense of breaking "the law" or violating "the law" in a societal or individual sense. The law, in its common use, are the LAWS actually passed by government and enforced by their agents. Said law may be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but they remain the "Law" until such time that said law is deemed unconstitutional by an appropriate source (and some jackass on the street or interacting with a cop or posting on a message board or writing a newspaper column is not that source).

So at best in a generic sense its a "law", but its not "the law", and its probably more accurate to describe it as a set of rights of individuals and guidelines/rules for the government.

If you want to get very "technical" and go on semantics though...

It is the Supreme Law of the land, but it would be incorrect to say that "The law is the constitution of the united states, not whatever a police offer says." BOTH of those statements is incorrect. The law is FAR more than what the US constitution states, and it is also not just whatever a police officer states. Additionally, on any given action, the Police Officers interpretation of the law is more valid than most given individuals. If a Police Officer says you violated the law with regards to something regarding speech, you can make the ARGUMENT all you want that the law he states is not the law because the Constitution says otherwise. HIS stance IS the law, yours is just an argument up until such point that you have Judge deem it as a valid argument as they...not any random individual...have the power to determine the constitutionality of a law in an official capacity.
 
Zyphlin- you are very wrong.

the Constitution of the USA and its Amendments are THE highest laws of the land. They are the most important laws in this country, and these laws decide which other laws are legal...or illegal.

No law in this country is valid, if it contradicts any laws in the Constitution. This makes the Constitution both literally & figuratively, the Law of the Land.
 
The USA Constitution laws are only what five old men and old women say they are at any particular point in time.

.
 
In the manner in which you are attempting to imply you mean with regards to "supreme law of the land", no. Colloquially its referred to as the "supreme law of the land". It's called such because, as the foundation of our governmental structure, all our legal system is built upon it. Laws that are not built upon that foundation are subject to collapse, as they lack the necessary structure to remain standing. In a sense you could state its the "laws" of the law, but doing so would be rather abstract and very much akin to saying guidelines.

However, the constitution itself doesn't really represent "law". Note we state when someone violates the Constitution they are acting "unconstitutionally" not "illegally". It is not illegal for the government to violate an individuals free speech; it is unconstitutional to do so. The "laws" are things passed by congress and signed by the President. Those laws can be judged based on their "Constitutionality" when it comes to the Constitution

You said "the law" not "a law". At best, the Constitution is "laws" in the generic sense...IE a set of principles or rules with authority under the state with regards to how people (in this case specifically the government) act. However, it wouldn't be "the law" in the sense of breaking "the law" or violating "the law" in a societal or individual sense. The law, in its common use, are the LAWS actually passed by government and enforced by their agents. Said law may be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but they remain the "Law" until such time that said law is deemed unconstitutional by an appropriate source (and some jackass on the street or interacting with a cop or posting on a message board or writing a newspaper column is not that source).

So at best in a generic sense its a "law", but its not "the law", and its probably more accurate to describe it as a set of rights of individuals and guidelines/rules for the government.

If you want to get very "technical" and go on semantics though...

It is the Supreme Law of the land, but it would be incorrect to say that "The law is the constitution of the united states, not whatever a police offer says." BOTH of those statements is incorrect. The law is FAR more than what the US constitution states, and it is also not just whatever a police officer states. Additionally, on any given action, the Police Officers interpretation of the law is more valid than most given individuals. If a Police Officer says you violated the law with regards to something regarding speech, you can make the ARGUMENT all you want that the law he states is not the law because the Constitution says otherwise. HIS stance IS the law, yours is just an argument up until such point that you have Judge deem it as a valid argument as they...not any random individual...have the power to determine the constitutionality of a law in an official capacity.


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 - so it's a law. When the legislative writes statutes or the court set precedents, or the executive branch enforce their mandates, they should conform to the laws that governs them - the Constitutions. So when the government act "unconstitutionally" they are acting unlawfully according to the laws that govern them - the Constitution - and the people can only seek redress in other ways, since the government cannot be jailed.

Since all laws should theoretically be constitutional, governments acting unconstitutionally would also be acting illegally, so the "illegal" part tend to be redundant, as in the case of government wiretapping Americans without due process.

However, even as police officers act as an agent of the government, they need not necessarily act in a way that is countenanced by the government, in such cases, it's not about whether the law conforms to the constitution (presumably the law already conforms to the constitution or it would have been challenged) but whether the officer's action conform to the statutes and common law that governs what they can do as officers.
 
The USA Constitution laws are only what five old men and old women say they are at any particular point in time.

.


All laws must be interpreted. Common law, and even the interpretation of statutes, changes with time and judges.
 
In the manner in which you are attempting to imply you mean with regards to "supreme law of the land", no. Colloquially its referred to as the "supreme law of the land". It's called such because, as the foundation of our governmental structure, all our legal system is built upon it. Laws that are not built upon that foundation are subject to collapse, as they lack the necessary structure to remain standing. In a sense you could state its the "laws" of the law, but doing so would be rather abstract and very much akin to saying guidelines.

However, the constitution itself doesn't really represent "law". Note we state when someone violates the Constitution they are acting "unconstitutionally" not "illegally". It is not illegal for the government to violate an individuals free speech; it is unconstitutional to do so. The "laws" are things passed by congress and signed by the President. Those laws can be judged based on their "Constitutionality" when it comes to the Constitution

You said "the law" not "a law". At best, the Constitution is "laws" in the generic sense...IE a set of principles or rules with authority under the state with regards to how people (in this case specifically the government) act. However, it wouldn't be "the law" in the sense of breaking "the law" or violating "the law" in a societal or individual sense. The law, in its common use, are the LAWS actually passed by government and enforced by their agents. Said law may be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but they remain the "Law" until such time that said law is deemed unconstitutional by an appropriate source (and some jackass on the street or interacting with a cop or posting on a message board or writing a newspaper column is not that source).

So at best in a generic sense its a "law", but its not "the law", and its probably more accurate to describe it as a set of rights of individuals and guidelines/rules for the government.

If you want to get very "technical" and go on semantics though...

It is the Supreme Law of the land, but it would be incorrect to say that "The law is the constitution of the united states, not whatever a police offer says." BOTH of those statements is incorrect. The law is FAR more than what the US constitution states, and it is also not just whatever a police officer states. Additionally, on any given action, the Police Officers interpretation of the law is more valid than most given individuals. If a Police Officer says you violated the law with regards to something regarding speech, you can make the ARGUMENT all you want that the law he states is not the law because the Constitution says otherwise. HIS stance IS the law, yours is just an argument up until such point that you have Judge deem it as a valid argument as they...not any random individual...have the power to determine the constitutionality of a law in an official capacity.

I want to thank you sir, for expressing my position in a way I only wish I was capable of.
 
The Constitution IS law.

In fact, it is the SUPREME law of the United States. No rule, law, regulation can contradict anything in the Constitution.
 
The Constitution IS law.

In fact, it is the SUPREME law of the United States. No rule, law, regulation can contradict anything in the Constitution.

Unfortunatly, not in the context that CT was using. You would know this if you bothered to read what zyphlin or myself wrote.
 
Unfortunatly, not in the context that CT was using. You would know this if you bothered to read what zyphlin or myself wrote.

none of this matters. the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. it trumps ALL state and local laws, and NO state or local laws can violate the laws of the Constitution.
 
none of this matters. the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. it trumps ALL state and local laws, and NO state or local laws can violate the laws of the Constitution.

No, it does not. You can not avoid arrest by pulling out your pocket constitution.
 
Unfortunatly, not in the context that CT was using. You would know this if you bothered to read what zyphlin or myself wrote.

The context I was using was the whim of a police officer is not law. A police officer is required to obey statues and precedents which much be in pursuance of the law of the Constitution, otherwise the actions of the police officer are tyranny and are unlawful.

Your ability to understand context is highly suspect given your prior arguments regarding the word "and".
 
No, it does not. You can not avoid arrest by pulling out your pocket constitution.

oh, and btw, I have indeed seen cops back off in certain situations, when folks cited certain constitutional rights & protections.
 
Perhaps I am mistaken but I was taught in my civics class that the United States Constitution was the supreme law of this nation.

Other members of this forum seem to think the Constitution is not the law, but just a set of guidelines and rights we all have as American citizens.

What do you think?

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?
 
Last edited:
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?

exactly!!

if the Constitution is not the SUPREME law of the land, then why can SCOTUS strike down any law or regulation in this country, simply due to it contradicting the Constitution?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom