State Sovereignty or Due Process?

Which is more important?

Here is a hypothetical. A state democratically passes a silly law which hurts a select group of people. The law is challenged and works its way up and the Supreme Court has a tough decision. It recognizes the law is silly and arbitrarily infringes on the liberty of some citizens but it wants to respect the democratic process. Should SCOTUS toss out the law to ensure the right to due process for those individual citizens or should it leave the law intact and simply encourage the state to repeal the law even if it may be enforced for some time and continue to negatively affect some citizens?

I leave this vague because I do not think it really matters what the law is or who it affects or how, what I am interested in is exploring the philosophical conflict between state sovereignty and due process.

CriticalThought said:

Which is more important?

Here is a hypothetical. A state democratically passes a silly law which hurts a select group of people. The law is challenged and works its way up and the Supreme Court has a tough decision. It recognizes the law is silly and arbitrarily infringes on the liberty of some citizens but it wants to respect the democratic process. Should SCOTUS toss out the law to ensure the right to due process for those individual citizens or should it leave the law intact and simply encourage the state to repeal the law even if it may be enforced for some time and continue to negatively affect some citizens?

I leave this vague because I do not think it really matters what the law is or who it affects or how, what I am interested in is exploring the philosophical conflict between state sovereignty and due process.

Click to expand...

No. If the law does not violate the letter of the US Constitution or infringe upon the federal grant of power it's out of the federal court's hands to adjudicate. You might have an argument if you were talking about the state's supreme court.

clownboy said:

No. If the law does not violate the letter of the US Constitution or infringe upon the federal grant of power it's out of the federal court's hands to adjudicate. You might have an argument if you were talking about the state's supreme court.

Click to expand...

I would argue the 14th amendment requires that the law serve some legitimate state interest.

"Silly" is subjective. Obviously if it passed in that state the majority of residents did not find it silly. I believe more so in state sovereignty unless the law directly violates the US Constitution. America is very diverse, including very politically diverse, I think state sovereignty and the ability of citizens to locally govern themselves should be enhanced and respected. There is going to be a strong variation in political philosophy between California and Texas and likewise with other states. The people of those states should have more power to shape the laws of their home and govern according to the principals people in that state have. I think unless the US Constitution specifically and explicitly prohibits a state law then the state law should stand, no matter how "silly" others find it to be.

CriticalThought said:

I would argue the 14th amendment requires that the law serve some legitimate state interest.

Click to expand...

You can argue that the sky is red on most days, you still cannot show where that is contained in the text of the 14th.

digsbe said:

"Silly" is subjective. Obviously if it passed in that state the majority of residents did not find it silly. I believe more so in state sovereignty unless the law directly violates the US Constitution. America is very diverse, including very politically diverse, I think state sovereignty and the ability of citizens to locally govern themselves should be enhanced and respected. There is going to be a strong variation in political philosophy between California and Texas and likewise with other states. The people of those states should have more power to shape the laws of their home and govern according to the principals people in that state have. I think unless the US Constitution specifically and explicitly prohibits a state law then the state law should stand, no matter how "silly" others find it to be.

Click to expand...

Historically speaking, state laws have passed simply because the majority has animosity towards a particular group of people. Part of the reason we live in a Constitutional Republic and not a direct democracy is because history has taught us of the dangers of the tyranny of majorities and the need to safeguard individual rights. There are times when a majority in a state can pass laws which arbitrarily infringes on individual liberty or fundamental rights determined in previous court decisions. While the US Constitution may not specifically and explicitly prohibit such laws, I think the courts are within their Constitutional right to strike down such laws if they are found to serve no legitimate state purpose and to needlessly harm or demean a group of people.

CriticalThought said:

Historically speaking, state laws have passed simply because the majority has animosity towards a particular group of people. Part of the reason we live in a Constitutional Republic and not a direct democracy is because history has taught us of the dangers of the tyranny of majorities and the need to safeguard individual rights. There are times when a majority in a state can pass laws which arbitrarily infringes on individual liberty or fundamental rights determined in previous court decisions. While the US Constitution may not specifically and explicitly prohibit such laws, I think the courts are within their Constitutional right to strike down such laws if they are found to serve no legitimate state purpose and to needlessly harm or demean a group of people.

Click to expand...

That disregards the role of the state's supreme courts and state constitutions. If the law exclusively harms a group of people, excluding all others ("demeans" has nothing to do with it) it is indeed in violation of the 14th.

Again, the legitimate interest standard has no basis in constitution and was spun wholly out of the federal supreme court's desire to meddle outside their grant of power.

clownboy said:

That disregards the role of the state's supreme courts and state constitutions. If the law exclusively harms a group of people, excluding all others ("demeans" has nothing to do with it) it is indeed in violation of the 14th.

Again, the legitimate interest standard has no basis in constitution and was spun wholly out of the federal supreme court's desire to meddle outside their grant of power.

Click to expand...

So rich men are equally prohibited from sleeping under bridges as poor men? Just because a law is written to affect everyone does not mean the circumstances do not lead to the effect of exclusively harming a particular group.

What standard should the court use to determine that laws are being applied equally and life, liberty, and property are not being denied arbitrarily? The 14th amendment does not explicitly spell out the process the court should use to enforce it, but I suspect the process you would have the courts use is also absent from the Constitution.

CriticalThought said:

Which is more important?

Here is a hypothetical. A state democratically passes a silly law which hurts a select group of people. The law is challenged and works its way up and the Supreme Court has a tough decision. It recognizes the law is silly and arbitrarily infringes on the liberty of some citizens but it wants to respect the democratic process. Should SCOTUS toss out the law to ensure the right to due process for those individual citizens or should it leave the law intact and simply encourage the state to repeal the law even if it may be enforced for some time and continue to negatively affect some citizens?

I leave this vague because I do not think it really matters what the law is or who it affects or how, what I am interested in is exploring the philosophical conflict between state sovereignty and due process.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you are asking about same sex marriage without saying same sex marriage so you can lure people into your trap.

Leaving that aside, it depends on what the law is.

CriticalThought said:

So rich men are equally prohibited from sleeping under bridges as poor men? Just because a law is written to affect everyone does not mean the circumstances do not lead to the effect of exclusively harming a particular group.

What standard should the court use to determine that laws are being applied equally and life, liberty, and property are not being denied arbitrarily? The 14th amendment does not explicitly spell out the process the court should use to enforce it, but I suspect the process you would have the courts use is also absent from the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Yes, that bridge law would not be unconstitutional (federally speaking). The state would have to show the law was equally applied.

The process? Is it contained in the text of the US constitution. You're overthinking it. If they have problems with understanding the text, the framers were very verbose in their writings and discussion of each and every provision.

logansrun said:

Sounds like you are asking about same sex marriage without saying same sex marriage so you can lure people into your trap.

Leaving that aside, it depends on what the law is.

Click to expand...

Actually, there a probably a good dozen such decisions spanning from racial segregation to corporate finance laws.

CriticalThought said:

Actually, there a probably a good dozen such decisions spanning from racial segregation to corporate finance laws.

Click to expand...

Since you have not cited one, I can now only conclude that your idea of "silly" and my idea of "silly" are going to be very different. Outlawing fake hands hanging out of car boots is silly. Outlawing racial segregation is not.

State laws cannot infringe on the rights guaranteed by the national constitution, and it is entirely appropriate for the courts, both state and federal, to throw out laws that violate this. Contrary to what some regressive, pro-authoritarian people might think, we have a great many rights other than those explicitly enumerated in the constitution. The 9th amendment says this quite plainly. We posses a general liberty interest, which cannot be arbitrarily or capriciously curtailed. Any law must meet at least a rational basis test. If it does not, it should be thrown out. It doesn't matter if it comes from a state government or the federal government, though this kind of nonsense most often comes from states.

clownboy said:

Yes, that bridge law would not be unconstitutional (federally speaking). The state would have to show the law was equally applied.

The process? Is it contained in the text of the US constitution. You're overthinking it. If they have problems with understanding the text, the framers were very verbose in their writings and discussion of each and every provision.

Click to expand...

Why are advocating on principle things you know in practice would have a grossly deleterious effect on society?

logansrun said:

Since you have not cited one, I can now only conclude that your idea of "silly" and my idea of "silly" are going to be very different. Outlawing fake hands hanging out of car boots is silly. Outlawing racial segregation is not.

Click to expand...

Loving v. Virginia.

Paschendale said:

State laws cannot infringe on the rights guaranteed by the national constitution, and it is entirely appropriate for the courts, both state and federal, to throw out laws that violate this. Contrary to what some regressive, pro-authoritarian people might think, we have a great many rights other than those explicitly enumerated in the constitution. The 9th amendment says this quite plainly. We posses a general liberty interest, which cannot be arbitrarily or capriciously curtailed. Any law must meet at least a rational basis test. If it does not, it should be thrown out. It doesn't matter if it comes from a state government or the federal government, though this kind of nonsense most often comes from states.

Click to expand...

And those non-enumerated rights, who determines those? The states and the people BY CONSITUTION, NOT the federal or their courts. Again, the rational basis test has no grounding in the US Constitution nor the court's grant of power.

CriticalThought said:

Loving v. Virginia.

Click to expand...

So you think blacks should not be allowed to marry whites? Loving v. Virginia is a case, not a law, so citing it without context could put you on either side of it.

CriticalThought said:

Why are advocating on principle things you know in practice would have a grossly deleterious effect on society?

Click to expand...

I am not, YOU are. I am advocating the people and the states do the work, the way it was supposed to be before the SCOTUS took the power away from the people by fiat. YOU are continuing to argue that we be ruled by the judiciary.

logansrun said:

So you think blacks should not be allowed to marry whites? Loving v. Virginia is a case, not a law, so citing it without context could put you on either side of it.

Click to expand...

In case you were not aware, this is a philosophy thread. We are debating a particular philosophical concept. Please read the OP if you wish to participate in the discussion.

clownboy said:

I am not, YOU are. I am advocating the people and the states do the work, the way it was supposed to be before the SCOTUS took the power away from the people by fiat. YOU are continuing to argue that we be ruled by the judiciary.

Click to expand...

So...you are unhappy with how the United States has existed for over 200 years?

CriticalThought said:

So...you are unhappy with how the United States has existed for over 200 years?

Click to expand...

In a way I suppose you could characterize it that way. Our SCOTUS has not acted in a proper manner at all times instead bowing to their own desires to meddle and/or socially engineer. They have often assumed the roles of congress and the people rather than follow their oath. Some justices, throughout our history, have fought against that.

clownboy said:

And those non-enumerated rights, who determines those? The states and the people BY CONSITUTION, NOT the federal or their courts. Again, the rational basis test has no grounding in the US Constitution nor the court's grant of power.

Click to expand...

No one has to determine them. We have every single possible right save for those that there is a constitutionally sound reason to deny us. All of this blanket anti federal government nonsense has no basis in history or law, and would result in a substantial curtailment of our individual liberty. It's very strange to see people stand up and yell about their freedom to be less free under an authoritarian state government that cannot be checked.

Why do you WANT to have fewer rights? Or is it just that you want everyone else not to have any rights that you personally don't tend to use?

Paschendale said:

No one has to determine them. We have every single possible right save for those that there is a constitutionally sound reason to deny us. All of this blanket anti federal government nonsense has no basis in history or law, and would result in a substantial curtailment of our individual liberty. It's very strange to see people stand up and yell about their freedom to be less free under an authoritarian state government that cannot be checked.

Why do you WANT to have fewer rights? Or is it just that you want everyone else not to have any rights that you personally don't tend to use?

Click to expand...

That is what I cannot get my head around. Assuming that SCOTUS has usurped more than its Constitutionally guaranteed authority, then it has had judicial review for over two hundred years and used rational basis review for over seventy years. And yet we are supposed to bemoan terrible judicial tyranny, which apparently has been extraordinarily restrained, and which has actually, generally led to far greater individual rights and protections over time. And we are supposed to exchange that for allowing majorities in states to dictate whatever policy may infringe on their citizens without any regard for animus or reason, as long as it isn't explicitly forbidden word for word in the Constitution. And people are apparently so bothered by the current state of affairs that it never occurred to them to amend the Constitution to reign in this terrible judicial tyranny.

CriticalThought said:

That is what I cannot get my head around. Assuming that SCOTUS has usurped more than its Constitutionally guaranteed authority, then it has had judicial review for over two hundred years and used rational basis review for over seventy years. And yet we are supposed to bemoan terrible judicial tyranny, which apparently has been extraordinarily restrained, and which has actually, generally led to far greater individual rights and protections over time. And we are supposed to exchange that for allowing majorities in states to dictate whatever policy may infringe on their citizens without any regard for animus or reason, as long as it isn't explicitly forbidden word for word in the Constitution. And people are apparently so bothered by the current state of affairs that it never occurred to them to amend the Constitution to reign in this terrible judicial tyranny.

Click to expand...

Let's start with that last comment. That is precisely the issue. The PEOPLE are solely in charge of the necessary maintenance of the US Constitution. The founders were quite vocal about this and the necessity of regular maintenance. We should be amending the constitution every generation. As it is, the court took the power to do it, and have used that power where the people have rarely used theirs.

As to the rest, yes, you ARE supposed to "bemoan terrible judicial tyranny". How the heck do you think we ought to feel about judicial tyranny? The problem with you arguments is that you inject all sorts of emotionalism, I suppose as a way to distract from the arguments you know you cannot rebut.

Yes, they have been restrained in their use of extra-constitutional power. This restraint has not always been self-restraint. But they use this power when they have no recourse in constitution. So many of the cases they have accepted over history have offered them the direct reading of the constitution to rule from, so that is NOT restraint, but in the nature of the cases they CHOOSE to accept.

To say they don't move with the social flow in place of constitution is to ignore history. Otherwise there would never be an overturn of precedent without there first being a change to the constitution. And in fact there have been many overturns of precedent.

The court has NOT brought far greater individual rights and protections. In fact thy have continually restricted the enumerated rights. Good example is the Second Amendment. What part of "Congress shall make NO law.." allows congress to make a law restricting gun ownership of anyone? Yes, I know it doesn't make sense for that to be unmoderated in a modern environment. Which brings us full circle. The PEOPLE should be maintaining their constitution. Not the court.

CriticalThought said:

That is what I cannot get my head around. Assuming that SCOTUS has usurped more than its Constitutionally guaranteed authority, then it has had judicial review for over two hundred years and used rational basis review for over seventy years. And yet we are supposed to bemoan terrible judicial tyranny, which apparently has been extraordinarily restrained, and which has actually, generally led to far greater individual rights and protections over time. And we are supposed to exchange that for allowing majorities in states to dictate whatever policy may infringe on their citizens without any regard for animus or reason, as long as it isn't explicitly forbidden word for word in the Constitution. And people are apparently so bothered by the current state of affairs that it never occurred to them to amend the Constitution to reign in this terrible judicial tyranny.

Click to expand...

That's largely because judicial review was never really usurping power. It was an idea put forth in the Federalist Papers. It was not spelled out as such (I actually will argue that it is), but it was clearly an intent of those who wrote the constitution. And I argue that it is spelled out in article 3. Article 3 says that the judicial power extends to all cases, and says nothing about limiting the relief available to a petitioner. All cases includes the ones where the petitioner is arguing that the law in question violates the constitution.

Generally, people who argue that the court shouldn't be able to overrule the legislature like this only do so when the judiciary is ruling against what they want. It's almost always a purely selfish argument. And it's usually very poorly thought out, ultimately opening the path for lawmakers to violate the constitution however they like, and the only real way to check that being violence. For example...

clownboy said:

The PEOPLE should be maintaining their constitution. Not the court.

Click to expand...

Okay... how?

Note that the example he chooses is guns. The one he cares about is the violent remedy. Also, "congress shall make no law" is from the first amendment, not the second, and yet nobody really argues that the law shouldn't be able to punish someone for yelling fire in a crowded theatre and causing a panic and getting people hurt. No one argues that there should be no remedy against slander or libel. It is very obvious that congress shall make some laws abridging the freedom of speech, but that the bar is set very high in determining which ones can be made.

I think that deep down, people who makes these kinds of arguments are definitely acting very selfishly, are clearly very ignorant, and are either incredibly naive or are basically anarchists like Henrin.