• 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
That's your interpretation. Others would disagree.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
 
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.

We get it, you disagree with a decision the Supreme Court made. Who cares?
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

yes, me too.

Americans have the right to keep & bear arms if they are part of the well-regulated militia, which is regulated by the government.
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

yes, me too.

Americans have the right to keep & bear arms if they are part of the well-regulated militia, which is regulated by the government.

See what I mean? :lol:
 
If you're talking about America and penile circumcision, you would be mistaken (see below).

In what way? You haven't shown anything otherwise 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.

No. When the majority feels that certain action should be made legal, they change the law to make it legal. Many laws that people dislike were enforceable - for example the Prohibition.

And if "natural law" is "what the general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong" then "natural law" means even less than nothing - which "general populace" are you talking about, from which time? Go to any state in the US, at any decade, and what the "general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong" could be very different.
 
Words can get tricky when you read them. :doh

See, THAT is why we have a supreme court, to keep boneheads with political agendas from reading into things like that :)
 
See, THAT is why we have a supreme court, to keep boneheads with political agendas from reading into things like that :)

no, we have a Supreme Court to interpate the laws of the Constitution when they are in dispute. Like the 2nd Amendment.
 
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.

You are confusing the interpretation of the constitution with the legal purview of the constitution. The constitution applies to every states in the country - all parts of it. No law can violate the constitution which makes it supreme. The interpretation of the second amendment however allows states to regulate guns.
 
You are confusing the interpretation of the constitution with the legal purview of the constitution. The constitution applies to every states in the country - all parts of it. No law can violate the constitution which makes it supreme. The interpretation of the second amendment however allows states to regulate guns.

as well as the Federal govt.
 
no, we have a Supreme Court to interpate the laws of the Constitution when they are in dispute. Like the 2nd Amendment.

The only reason the 2nd amendment is in dispute is because liberals with an agenda are seeking a way to override the will of the people and a nine person oligarchy is the best way to accomplish that.
 
No. When the majority feels that certain action should be made legal, they change the law to make it legal. Many laws that people dislike were enforceable - for example the Prohibition.

Natural law isn't about what "the majority" feels should be legal or illegal. It's about how society as a whole simply reacts. As for prohibition, it was certainly enforceable, but at a cost far higher than the benefits gained, which is why it was reversed.

And if "natural law" is "what the general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong" then "natural law" means even less than nothing - which "general populace" are you talking about, from which time? Go to any state in the US, at any decade, and what the "general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong" could be very different.

You're free to believe it means even less than nothing. It does not require your belief. It simply is.
 
The only reason the 2nd amendment is in dispute is because liberals with an agenda are seeking a way to override the will of the people and a nine person oligarchy is the best way to accomplish that.

When did conservatives start becoming such conspiracy theorists? :lamo

What is your point, friday, and how can you relate it to the topic of the thread?
 
The only reason the 2nd amendment is in dispute is because liberals with an agenda are seeking a way to override the will of the people and a nine person oligarchy is the best way to accomplish that.

no, the only reason the 2nd Amendment is in dispute is because Conservatives with an agenda think a "well-regulated Militia" means every Tom, Dick, & Harry owning an AK-47, under the supervision of Grandma Doofus Roofus.
 
Elections are about public opinion -- natural law is about generally recognized taboos and imperatives.

Which is why we use a representative system, with a constitution that prevents discrimination and guaranteeing basic rights, so as to limit tyranny of the majority.
 
The only reason the 2nd amendment is in dispute is because liberals with an agenda are seeking a way to override the will of the people and a nine person oligarchy is the best way to accomplish that.

There are a lot of people out there who have an issue with concealed carry and private ownership of firearms. I think you need to rethink your definition of "the will of the people."
 
When did conservatives start becoming such conspiracy theorists? :lamo

What is your point, friday, and how can you relate it to the topic of the thread?

Hey, this isn't my rabbit trail. My only point was that the 14th amendment has not resulted in the complete incorporation of the entire bill of rights or constitution to the states.
 
Which is why we use a representative system, with a constitution that prevents discrimination and guaranteeing basic rights, so as to limit tyranny of the majority.

yeah, but the Constitution is just a "guide". Its merely "advisory".

discrimination is therefore legal. ;)
 
Which is why we use a representative system, with a constitution that prevents discrimination and guaranteeing basic rights, so as to limit tyranny of the majority.

The Constitution most certainly did not prevent discrimination or guarantee basic rights for all at its inception, and not for quite some time afterwards. The tyranny of the majority was alive and well for the first 100+ years.
 
The Constitution most certainly did not prevent discrimination or guarantee basic rights for all at its inception, and not for quite some time afterwards. The tyranny of the majority was alive and well for the first 100+ years.

err...more like a faulty Constitution that needed some updating.
 
Back
Top Bottom