Sins of Omission

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

The Supreme Court has the final say on the constitutionality of laws, not Congress.

but i thought they were all lawyers and knew what they were doing!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If by right you mean that they have the final say, I agree. The Supreme Court has the final say on the constitutionality of laws, not Congress.

ETA: with the exception of an amendment.

Or, State Compacts, which avoid both the President, and the Federal Courts. State Compact Theory would allow the states to nullify any SCOTUS ruling, since the states, not the courts, signed the US Constitution.

Edited January 7, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[^_^ 5,021]

Or, State Compacts, which avoid both the President, and the Federal Courts. State Compact Theory would allow the states to nullify any SCOTUS ruling, since the states, not the courts, signed the US Constitution.

Supreme Court of the United States

William G. Cooper, et al

v.

John Aaron, et al.

August Special Term, 1958.

Decided Sept. 29, 1958.

Concurring Opinion Oct. 6, 1958.

358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401

...

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery * * *." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136, 3 L. Ed. 53.

A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land

; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases * * *." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397-398.

http://www2.law.howard.edu/brownCases/PostBrownCases/CoopervAaron1958.htm

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Or, State Compacts, which avoid both the President, and the Federal Courts. State Compact Theory would allow the states to nullify any SCOTUS ruling, since the states, not the courts, signed the US Constitution.

Do know of any instances where that has actually happened?

[^_^ 5,021]

Do know of any instances where that has actually happened?

Here's one.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kentucky_Resolutions_of_1798

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Supreme Court of the United States

William G. Cooper, et al

v.

John Aaron, et al.

August Special Term, 1958.

Decided Sept. 29, 1958.

Concurring Opinion Oct. 6, 1958.

358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401

...

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery * * *." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136, 3 L. Ed. 53.

A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land

; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases * * *." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397-398.

http://www2.law.howard.edu/brownCases/PostBrownCases/CoopervAaron1958.htm

It is a theory of government, that the States collectively must be the final arbitrators. After all, SCOTUS is a creation of the States, not the other way around. Yet, the really only attempt at exercising that authority resulted in Lincoln's war. When the States raised and maintained standing armies, and not Congress, even then, the attempt was unsuccessful.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's one.

http://en.wikisource...lutions_of_1798

That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party; that this government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Hmmm...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It is a theory of government, that the States collectively must be the final arbitrators. After all, SCOTUS is a creation of the States, not the other way around. Yet, the really only attempt at exercising that authority resulted in Lincoln's war. When the States raised and maintained standing armies, and not Congress, even then, the attempt was unsuccessful.

Sounds to me like it's about separation of powers, not about giving ultimate authority on matters to the individual states, just matters not delegated to the Federal Gov't.

[^_^ 5,021]

It is a theory of government, that the States collectively must be the final arbitrators. After all, SCOTUS is a creation of the States, not the other way around. Yet, the really only attempt at exercising that authority resulted in Lincoln's war. When the States raised and maintained standing armies, and not Congress, even then, the attempt was unsuccessful.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

No, the constitution and the laws of the united states (as determined by congress) "shall be the supreme law of the land".

Article VI.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

No, the constitution and the laws of the united states (as determined by congress) "shall be the supreme law of the land".

Article VI.

That bleedin' Constitution again!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

No, the constitution and the laws of the united states (as determined by congress) "shall be the supreme law of the land".

Article VI.

Which was created by whom?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Which was created by whom?

States have ultimate authority because they delegated authority over to a centralized government through the Constitution? Are you for real?

Edited January 7, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[^_^ 5,021]

Which was created by whom?

The states, therefore they can say oops never mind whenever they want? No. They ratified this constitution which includes Article 6...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The states, therefore they can say oops never mind whenever they want? No. They ratified this constitution which includes Article 6...

And, by the theory stated not long after it was ratified, they reserved to the States the right to interpret, alter, or abolish it. Think of your father, that I am sure once said, "I brought you into this would, and I can damn sure take you out of it!"

Edited January 7, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

States have ultimate authority because they delegated authority over to a centralized government through the Constitution? Are you for real?

That seems to be what some of the authors of the Constitution thought, i.e. Jefferson and Madison.