• 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!

Can a supreme court ruling be unconstitutional?

Poll

  • Total voters
    54
You bet they can, and not just once in a while, either.

A classic example is the eminent domain decision where private property could be seized just so developers and city councils could conspire to profit and "enhance the tax base."

And of course, don't forget the NUMEROUS violations of the second amendment.
...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed."
EVERY gun "law" or "restriction" is a violation, period.
 
ronpaulvoter said:
You bet they can, and not just once in a while, either.

A classic example is the eminent domain decision where private property could be seized just so developers and city councils could conspire to profit and "enhance the tax base."

And of course, don't forget the NUMEROUS violations of the second amendment.
...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed."
EVERY gun "law" or "restriction" is a violation, period.
Click to expand...

Every federal gun law is definitely a violation. It gets a little trickier with local laws. It really depends on whether the ammendmetns are restricting federal government or if they should be incorporated to the states.
 
"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

Justice Jackson.

It's something of a philosophical question. If you believe that the constitution has maintained a fixed meaning since its drafting, then each reversal of a past decision is proof of something. You could argue that the old decision was not unconstitutional but merely an erroneous interpretation of a constitutional principle, but that's splitting hairs.

If you believe that the constitution evolves over time, then it's possible that no supreme court ruling could ever be unconstitutional. You could argue that Plessy was constitutional at the time it was decided, and that the constitution evolved by the 50's such that Brown could be constitutional as well.
 
RightinNYC said:
"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

Justice Jackson.

It's something of a philosophical question. If you believe that the constitution has maintained a fixed meaning since its drafting, then each reversal of a past decision is proof of something. You could argue that the old decision was not unconstitutional but merely an erroneous interpretation of a constitutional principle, but that's splitting hairs.

If you believe that the constitution evolves over time, then it's possible that no supreme court ruling could ever be unconstitutional. You could argue that Plessy was constitutional at the time it was decided, and that the constitution evolved by the 50's such that Brown could be constitutional as well.
Click to expand...

Didn't Marshall declare the Supreme court to be the end all and be all of Constitutional interpretation in Marbury v. Madison?
 
megaprogman said:
If the supreme court decides on what is constitutional and what isn't in their rulings. Can their rulings be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...


They obviously can, and have, made decisions that turn out to be unconstitutional.

Simply reference the Dredd Scott decision, for one.

"Seperate but equal" was declared Constitutional, then later declared unconstitutional.

SCOTUS is composed of human beings, who are susceptible to error, populism and expediency just as any other human beings are.

Thus there need to be greater checks and balances against SCOTUS than are currently in common use.
 
Tucker Case said:
Didn't Marshall declare the Supreme court to be the end all and be all of Constitutional interpretation in Marbury v. Madison?
Click to expand...

In practice they are, but Jackson was just arguing that this is more of a practical necessity than any proof that the court is necessarily good at what it does.
 
megaprogman said:
If the supreme court decides on what is constitutional and what isn't in their rulings. Can their rulings be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Yes, the justices are as falable as anybody else, and for that reason they are capable of making the wrong decision.
 
All this thread shows, once again, is how few people understand the law and the Constitution.
 
RightinNYC said:
"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

Justice Jackson.

It's something of a philosophical question. If you believe that the constitution has maintained a fixed meaning since its drafting, then each reversal of a past decision is proof of something. You could argue that the old decision was not unconstitutional but merely an erroneous interpretation of a constitutional principle, but that's splitting hairs.

If you believe that the constitution evolves over time, then it's possible that no supreme court ruling could ever be unconstitutional. You could argue that Plessy was constitutional at the time it was decided, and that the constitution evolved by the 50's such that Brown could be constitutional as well.
Click to expand...

This comment shows a lot of insight into the question asked.

But then again, the Supreme Court was designed just to interpret the Constitution. What it was designed to do was provide long-term stability to the U.S. government. This is why the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review and their terms are lifetime appointments. Their place isn't just to rule on the constitutionality of appealed cases - it is to serve as a bulwark to protect the Constitution from the shorter term affects of the President and Congress.

In this regard, I think the Supreme Court is good and needed, as it provides long term stability to our government. However, there are many rulings of the Supreme Court that I disagree with and find to violate other aspects of the Constitution. Still, that stability may be worth it.
 
Of course it can.

If the constitution changes, per amendments, a previous ruling in accordance with the constitution can be unconstitutional under the new constitution.

Further, a SCOTUS can rule one way, only to be overturned as unconstitutional by a later SCOTUS.
 
Southern Man said:
Looking over my copy I don't see Paine's signature....

Perhaps you have the libtard version of the Constitution, written in smudged red crayon.
Click to expand...

I did not say Paine signed it. It is contained in his writing, "Crisis", either I or II. Actually what he said was "rule from beyond the grave", when he was referring to the laws of dead kings. If the constitution were not a living document then we would not be able to amend it and there would still be slavery, for example, or, senators would be chosen and not elected.
 
Last edited:
Groucho said:
All this thread shows, once again, is how few people understand the law and the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Actually it shows that the majority here are fairly intelligent and know quite a bit about our Constitution and government. It also shows they understand that men make mistakes and are not infallible.

The arrogance of your statement is incredible.

The majority of people here are not the "unwashed masses" as most are educated and keep abreast of politics.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I did not say Paine signed it. It is contained in his writing, "Crisis", either I or II. Actually what he said was "rule from beyond the grave", when he was referring to the laws of dead kings. If the constitution were not a living document then we would not be able to amend it and there would still be slavery, for example, or, senators would be chosen and not elected.
Click to expand...

I used to think like SM on that one. You are correct in my opinion. The ability to amend and change it does make it more of a living document.
 
Blackdog said:
I used to think like SM on that one. You are correct in my opinion. The ability to amend and change it does make it more of a living document.
Click to expand...

I would argue that that cuts in the exact opposite direction.

If they had said that the text of the constitution could not be amended in any way, it might seem logical to conclude that its interpretation could change over time, as that would be the only way for such a broad document to survive for so long.

However, because they provided a very particular way by which the Constitution could be changed, that would indicate to me that they believed that if new rights needed to be created, the way to do so would be through the duly provided amendment process. Put another way, the amendment process would be read as the exclusive remedy for changing the meaning of the constitution.
 
Yes. A Supreme Court ruling can be deemed unconstitutional. As such, a ruling can be reversed. Seldom happens as some examples mentioned clearly indicate, but when it does the nation gets turned on its ear! Hence, it's important for the SC to get their decisions right the first and hopefully only time around.
 
RightinNYC said:
I would argue that that cuts in the exact opposite direction.

If they had said that the text of the constitution could not be amended in any way, it might seem logical to conclude that its interpretation could change over time, as that would be the only way for such a broad document to survive for so long.

However, because they provided a very particular way by which the Constitution could be changed, that would indicate to me that they believed that if new rights needed to be created, the way to do so would be through the duly provided amendment process. Put another way, the amendment process would be read as the exclusive remedy for changing the meaning of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Hard or easy changes can be made. It is living politically if changes can be made.

For example it took a group considered property and made them citizens according to the Constitution when they were not before. That is a HUGE change.

I see your point, I just don't agree.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
I would argue that that cuts in the exact opposite direction.

If they had said that the text of the constitution could not be amended in any way, it might seem logical to conclude that its interpretation could change over time, as that would be the only way for such a broad document to survive for so long.

However, because they provided a very particular way by which the Constitution could be changed, that would indicate to me that they believed that if new rights needed to be created, the way to do so would be through the duly provided amendment process. Put another way, the amendment process would be read as the exclusive remedy for changing the meaning of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Actually it's not about the changing the "meaning" of the constitution. It's about changing certain enumerations of the constitution to conform to the realities of evolution.
 
Blackdog said:
Actually it shows that the majority here are fairly intelligent and know quite a bit about our Constitution and government. It also shows they understand that men make mistakes and are not infallible.

The arrogance of your statement is incredible.

The majority of people here are not the "unwashed masses" as most are educated and keep abreast of politics.
Click to expand...

No, it shows a basic understanding of what Constitutional means.

The question was not "Does the Supreme Court ever make decisions that, in your opinion, are incorrect and go against the Constitution?" Even I would agree with that.

The question was whether a Supreme Court decision CAN be unconstitutional. The only answer is NO. It is IMPOSSIBLE. If the Supreme Court says "this is what the Constitution means" then legally that's what it means. We can all disagree with their decision, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
 
Groucho said:
No, it shows a basic understanding of what Constitutional means.

The question was not "Does the Supreme Court ever make decisions that, in your opinion, are incorrect and go against the Constitution?" Even I would agree with that.

The question was whether a Supreme Court decision CAN be unconstitutional. The only answer is NO. It is IMPOSSIBLE. If the Supreme Court says "this is what the Constitution means" then legally that's what it means. We can all disagree with their decision, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

And yet the court has been reversed as things are seen later to be just that, unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS is not perfect or infallible.

History is a damn good teacher, and has proved this to be fact.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
And yet the court has been reversed as things are seen later to be just that, unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS is not perfect or infallible.

History is a damn good teacher, and has proved this to be fact.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing my point.

Does the Supreme Court make terrible decisions that go against the Constitution and require amendments and other fixes, including having later courts overrule them? YES of course, obviously.

Does this mean that the Supreme Court's decisions at the time ARE Unconstitutional? NO because the court cannot make a decision that is unconstitutional under the law. If they decide that the Constitution says X, then under the law that's what it says -- at least until the court changes its mind or we amend the Constitution.

Legally speaking, a court's decision CANNOT be Unconstitutional. It's IMPOSSIBLE.

However, that doesn't mean we can't in our opinion (and even in the court's own dissenting opinion) hold that the decision violates the Constitution. But technically, it's NOT.

So NO, the Court CANNOT be Unconstitutional. But it sure can be WRONG.

Does that help clarify what I am trying to say? Maybe I'm just being too literal. Or legal.
 
Groucho said:
I think you're missing my point.

Does the Supreme Court make terrible decisions that go against the Constitution and require amendments and other fixes, including having later courts overrule them? YES of course, obviously.

Does this mean that the Supreme Court's decisions at the time ARE Unconstitutional? NO because the court cannot make a decision that is unconstitutional under the law. If they decide that the Constitution says X, then under the law that's what it says -- at least until the court changes its mind or we amend the Constitution.

Legally speaking, a court's decision CANNOT be Unconstitutional. It's IMPOSSIBLE.

However, that doesn't mean we can't in our opinion (and even in the court's own dissenting opinion) hold that the decision violates the Constitution. But technically, it's NOT.

So NO, the Court CANNOT be Unconstitutional. But it sure can be WRONG.

Does that help clarify what I am trying to say? Maybe I'm just being too literal. Or legal.
Click to expand...

I see your point but as with most people wrong = unconstitutional.

So legally I agree, but we are not talking strict terms here. Yes they have made rulings that were later to be found unconstitutional. So I still say yes.
 
Groucho said:
No, it shows a basic understanding of what Constitutional means.

The question was not "Does the Supreme Court ever make decisions that, in your opinion, are incorrect and go against the Constitution?" Even I would agree with that.

The question was whether a Supreme Court decision CAN be unconstitutional. The only answer is NO. It is IMPOSSIBLE. If the Supreme Court says "this is what the Constitution means" then legally that's what it means. We can all disagree with their decision, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Oh picky, picky picky.:ws
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I did not say Paine signed it. It is contained in his writing, "Crisis", either I or II. Actually what he said was "rule from beyond the grave", when he was referring to the laws of dead kings. If the constitution were not a living document then we would not be able to amend it and there would still be slavery, for example, or, senators would be chosen and not elected.
Click to expand...
So what? Lots of folks have written lots of things about the Constitution, most of it as inconsequential as your hero, Paine.
 
Blackdog said:
And yet the court has been reversed as things are seen later to be just that, unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS is not perfect or infallible.

History is a damn good teacher, and has proved this to be fact.
Click to expand...

This could also mean that the meaning of the constitution has changed, in a legal sense.

Which, in practice, it does. I am less concerned with the right and wrongness of a decision and am more concerned about the legalities of it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom