• 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
read it. so what's your point?

My point is that it clearly demonstrates that your understanding of the Supreme Court, which you claimed you needed to educate others about, was sadly mistaken. This was made obvious by the fact that you refused to so much as acknowledge mention of the case until I called you on it several times.
 
My point is that it clearly demonstrates that your understanding of the Supreme Court, which you claimed you needed to educate others about, was sadly mistaken. This was made obvious by the fact that you refused to so much as acknowledge mention of the case until I called you on it several times.

Not that I have a side that I am agreeing with on this discussion, but at no point have you pointed out any specific ruling or quote that proves your point. I like details.
 
Not that I have a side that I am agreeing with on this discussion, but at no point have you pointed out any specific ruling or quote that proves your point. I like details.

You're responding to a post about Marbury v. Madison, but it sounds like you're talking about my argument on natural law... ?
 
My point is that it clearly demonstrates that your understanding of the Supreme Court, which you claimed you needed to educate others about, was sadly mistaken. This was made obvious by the fact that you refused to so much as acknowledge mention of the case until I called you on it several times.

that's nice.

mean while, the Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land, and Congress has the responsibility to sometimes interpate the meaning & intent of the laws in the Constitution.

if they didn't, then we would have NO guide....which means anarchy.
 
that's nice.

Apparently it was hard for you to swallow, seeing as how you took so long to get around to it. If you want to pretend to brush it off, that's fine.

mean while, the Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land, and Congress has the responsibility to sometimes interpate the meaning & intent of the laws in the Constitution.

Really? Congress? Where in the Constitution do you find that they have any such responsibility?
 
You're responding to a post about Marbury v. Madison, but it sounds like you're talking about my argument on natural law... ?

No, though I did enjoy our brief discussion of natural law, I would like to hear your interpretation of Marbury v. Madison.
 
No, though I did enjoy our brief discussion of natural law, I would like to hear your interpretation of Marbury v. Madison.

It was Thunder's assertion that the authority of judicial review was assigned to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. This is not true. This is an authority that the Supreme Court itself decided it had.

The most important part of Marbury v. Madison -- as with many other Supreme Court cases -- wasn't about the central issue of the case. The case had to do with judicial appointments made by Adams his last day in office that were not delivered before his term as President expired.
 
Illegal and enforceable -- murder. Illegal but mainly unenforceable -- sodomy.

You were talking about "breaking the law and widespread disregard for the law" - how are they different and how does the difference justify any of your arguement?


I don't have to demonstrate it because it happens all around us, every single day, but I've pointed to riots and social uprisings -- those are the most powerful and most visible manifestations of the enforcement of natural law, but the fact is it happens every day between individuals over far less momentous issues.

Yeah, yeah, and God and vodoism happens everyday as well. Vague reference to occurrences without demonstrating proper logical connections is not a valid arguement.
 
You were talking about "breaking the law and widespread disregard for the law" - how are they different and how does the difference justify any of your arguement?

If you write a law, somebody out there is going to break it. I'm trying to differentiate between the simple fact that laws as straightforward as those which make murder illegal must be enforced, and some laws are by and large unenforceable.

Yeah, yeah, and God and vodoism happens everyday as well. Vague reference to occurrences without demonstrating proper logical connections is not a valid arguement.

Natural law, its enforcement and the penalties for breaking it are self-evident, but you liken it to deity because natural law isn't recorded or its statistics collected. This is so because they are self-evident.
 
Are you kidding me? Where the hell do you think the "self-evident truths" of the Declaration of Independence came from? Maybe you don't like the way I'm phrasing my definition, maybe the definitions as handed down by those who came before me used loftier wording, but they all essentially boil down to the same thing.

Which thing? Why don't you try thinking about where the "self-evidence" truth comes from? Is it from the "general populace" as you have claimed? If you can't even stand by your own definition, of what you good is anything you say?

The Court hasn't comprehensively defined natural law, even though it has referred to the concept on a number of very important occasions, because the Court has never needed to define it. It essentially amounts to what the people of the day generally see as being so obvious that a formal definition isn't required.

Really? And where does the court says that it never needed to define it because it's so "obvious"? Laws are rarely "obvious" which is why we have courts and judges to interpret them, and those are actual written laws, not some vague idea you have about "what the people of the day generally see" or "the general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong" or "how society as a whole simply reacts". When natural justice requires that the Court creates new precedents, they are Common Laws, and as I said: Statutes still supersede Common Laws, and the Constitution supersedes statutes. So we are back to the same the conclusion, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the country.
 
wrong. sorry.

It's absolutely true. The Constitution defined the jurisdiction of the Court and described its authority to decide disputes according to the law -- it did not grant the Court the power of judicial review, the Court granted itself that power.
 
Really? And where does the court says that it never needed to define it because it's so "obvious"? Laws are rarely "obvious" which is why we have courts and judges to interpret them, and those are actual written laws, not some vague idea you have about "what the people of the day generally see" or "the general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong" or "how society as a whole simply reacts". When natural justice requires that the Court creates new precedents, they are Common Laws, and as I said: Statutes still supersede Common Laws, and the Constitution supersedes statutes. So we are back to the same the conclusion, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the country.

Oh, for crying out loud -- the Court doesn't describe natural law using my explicit words, but if you read past the pomp and circumstance, that's what they mean when they talk about natural law. They don't define natural law because to them it's so obvious that it requires no definition or code. An argument that natural law needed to be taken down and spelled out would be as absurd to the justices who have referenced natural law as the concept that an individual doesn't have the right to defend themselves.
 
If you write a law, somebody out there is going to break it. I'm trying to differentiate between the simple fact that laws as straightforward as those which make murder illegal must be enforced, and some laws are by and large unenforceable.

And how does that justify your arguement that your natural law is supreme? So murder is wrong, and it still happens. But because it's illegal it's punished when caught. Mutilating a child's clitoris is wrong, but because it's not illegal in certain countries, people who do it are not punished. And maybe the majority of people don't think taking marijuana is wrong, but because it's illegal, it's still punished when caught. All that seem to say that the Law is enforceable, your natural law is not.


Natural law, its enforcement and the penalties for breaking it are self-evident, but you liken it to deity because natural law isn't recorded or its statistics collected. This is so because they are self-evident.

If it is self-evident, then it would be easy to see and judge. I liken your arguement to that of a preacher, not the concept of natural law itself. Claiming self-evidence without providing said evidence is another preacher-like arguement.
 
It's absolutely true. The Constitution defined the jurisdiction of the Court and described its authority to decide disputes according to the law -- it did not grant the Court the power of judicial review, the Court granted itself that power.

your historical revisionism is beginning to bore me.
 
And how does that justify your arguement that your natural law is supreme? So murder is wrong, and it still happens. But because it's illegal it's punished when caught.

Society's reaction to the behavior of others is where natural law finds its root. Common sense is another way of describing it. So is self-evident truth. The law defines and proscribes murder, but even if there was no law which specifically did so I can guarantee you that society would have to be very different to respond to murder in any way other than negatively.

Mutilating a child's clitoris is wrong, but because it's not illegal in certain countries, people who do it are not punished.

Different societies perceive the same issue in different ways. I never tried to argue that natural law is universally the same across the whole of the human race. Very few things are universally the same across the whole of the human race.

And maybe the majority of people don't think taking marijuana is wrong, but because it's illegal, it's still punished when caught. All that seem to say that the Law is enforceable, your natural law is not.

Natural law is as self-enforcing as it is self-evident. I imagine that the number of people who would let slide the crime of cold-blooded murder is far smaller than the number of people who would turn a blind eye to someone smoking pot in the privacy of their own home.

If it is self-evident, then it would be easy to see and judge. I liken your arguement to that of a preacher, not the concept of natural law itself. Claiming self-evidence without providing said evidence is another preacher-like arguement.

Would you like a dissertation on the color of the sky while you're at it? :lol:
 
your historical revisionism is beginning to bore me.

I pointed out how the Court explicitly granted itself the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. If you can point to where in the Constitution the Court was given that authority, then you're right. If you can't, then you're wrong.

I await your citation.
 
Oh, for crying out loud -- the Court doesn't describe natural law using my explicit words, but if you read past the pomp and circumstance, that's what they mean when they talk about natural law. They don't define natural law because to them it's so obvious that it requires no definition or code. An argument that natural law needed to be taken down and spelled out would be as absurd to the justices who have referenced natural law as the concept that an individual doesn't have the right to defend themselves.

You have provided nothing to show how the court interpret natural laws, and if they don't use the words you choose, how would we know that they mean what you mean? At this point, I question if you even know what you mean by "natural law".

Which court said that it's "so obvious that it requires no definition or code"?

No one argued that it has to be taken down or spelled out, it can't be done because it's not "obvious" as you claimed. The court can only deal with particular cases and set precedents as necessary. So don't come in with the strawman.

As regard to self-defense, that is governed by the Law, not "natural law", even if everyone believes that it's okay to shoot any stranger that come into one's house, where the Law says that you should only shoot when the stranger is threatening and not running away, you can be punished for acting otherwise, whatever your "natural law" says.
 
Society's reaction to the behavior of others is where natural law finds its root. Common sense is another way of describing it. So is self-evident truth. The law defines and proscribes murder, but even if there was no law which specifically did so I can guarantee you that society would have to be very different to respond to murder in any way other than negatively.

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.


Different societies perceive the same issue in different ways. I never tried to argue that natural law is universally the same across the whole of the human race. Very few things are universally the same across the whole of the human race.





Natural law is as self-enforcing as it is self-evident. I imagine that the number of people who would let slide the crime of cold-blooded murder is far smaller than the number of people who would turn a blind eye to someone smoking pot in the privacy of their own home.

Which still doesn't support your arguement that "natural law" is supreme in anyway.


Would you like a dissertation on the color of the sky while you're at it? :lol:

Well, you should try, maybe it will make you understand how your arguements are lacking in logic.
 
Last edited:
You have provided nothing to show how the court interpret natural laws

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.

and if they don't use the words you choose, how would we know that they mean what you mean?

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.

No one argued that it has to be taken down or spelled out

That seemed to be your argument.

As regard to self-defense, that is governed by the Law, not "natural law", even if everyone believes that it's okay to shoot any stranger that come into one's house, where the Law says that you should only shoot when the stranger is threatening and not running away, you can be punished for acting otherwise, whatever your "natural law" says.

The fact that something is codified in the letter of the law doesn't mean it's governed by the law. People are going to defend themselves whether or not the law gives them permission. 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.
 
Back
Top Bottom