Should an unelected Supreme Court overturn a State constitution as 'unconstitutional'? (Missouri)

[Syriusly]

Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.

What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.

 

[saveliberty]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

 

[saveliberty]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I doubt the entire state constitution would come in question, perhaps a provision. The problem starts when activist judges and Justices enter the picture.

 

[bendog]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I don't think there's any overturning of a constitution issue. Rather it seems to be about what constitutes a "religious activity." Of course the founders did nto want public money going to church buildings. But, sectarian nonprofits operating playgrounds can get the money. I'm aware of churches that get around this sectarian/non-sectarian non profit distinction by forming nominally independent separate entities to operate soup kitchens/food banks, and even an idependent but religiously affiliated school.

 

[bendog]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I doubt the entire state constitution would come in question, perhaps a provision. The problem starts when activist judges and Justices enter the picture.

Oddly, Ginsburg seems to be in the conservative (ie not making law changes) camp. LOL

 

[saveliberty]

I am Lutheran.

That said, this is a toughie. Can the public use the playground? That would be the biggest question for me. If it is predominantly for church use, then I think there's a problem. Are the student mostly from the church or community? If the church is agreeing to public use if it is given the grant, I think the state has a problem.

 

[ptbw forever]

This coming from idiots who applaud wannabe Supreme Court justices overturning executive orders based purely on the so called "intent" of President Trump.

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I doubt the entire state constitution would come in question, perhaps a provision. The problem starts when activist judges and Justices enter the picture.

The issue is whether the Supreme Court can overturn an element of a state's constitution by determining that the provision of the constitution violates the U.S. Constitution.

If they do so- are they activists judges and justices?

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I don't think there's any overturning of a constitution issue. Rather it seems to be about what constitutes a "religious activity." Of course the founders did nto want public money going to church buildings. But, sectarian nonprofits operating playgrounds can get the money. I'm aware of churches that get around this sectarian/non-sectarian non profit distinction by forming nominally independent separate entities to operate soup kitchens/food banks, and even an idependent but religiously affiliated school.

In the case of Missouri and several other states, the prohibition is hardwired into the State constitution.

Again- I am asking is if anyone has a problem with the Supreme Court overturning a provision in a State constitution by finding it unconstitutional?

It is a state's rights issue versus a bill of rights issue.

 

[saveliberty]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I doubt the entire state constitution would come in question, perhaps a provision. The problem starts when activist judges and Justices enter the picture.

The issue is whether the Supreme Court can overturn an element of a state's constitution by determining that the provision of the constitution violates the U.S. Constitution.

If they do so- are they activists judges and justices?

Depends on the reasoning. If it doesn't use the Constitution directly, it may be activism. It seems like the arguments are leaning toward nonreligious access to the state grant playground surface. That seems to be a Constitutional question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.

What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.

Supremacy Clause:

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, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I doubt the entire state constitution would come in question, perhaps a provision. The problem starts when activist judges and Justices enter the picture.

The issue is whether the Supreme Court can overturn an element of a state's constitution by determining that the provision of the constitution violates the U.S. Constitution.

If they do so- are they activists judges and justices?

Depends on the reasoning. If it doesn't use the Constitution directly, it may be activism. It seems like the arguments are leaning toward nonreligious access to the state grant playground surface. That seems to be a Constitutional question.

???

On what grounds other than the U.S. Constitution does a Supreme Court ever overturn a provision of a State constitution?

 

[saveliberty]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I doubt the entire state constitution would come in question, perhaps a provision. The problem starts when activist judges and Justices enter the picture.

The issue is whether the Supreme Court can overturn an element of a state's constitution by determining that the provision of the constitution violates the U.S. Constitution.

If they do so- are they activists judges and justices?

Depends on the reasoning. If it doesn't use the Constitution directly, it may be activism. It seems like the arguments are leaning toward nonreligious access to the state grant playground surface. That seems to be a Constitutional question.

???

On what grounds other than the U.S. Constitution does a Supreme Court ever overturn a provision of a State constitution?

Well, Obamacare was saved on terminology with considering it a tax.

 

[task0778]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I don't think there's any overturning of a constitution issue. Rather it seems to be about what constitutes a "religious activity." Of course the founders did nto want public money going to church buildings. But, sectarian nonprofits operating playgrounds can get the money. I'm aware of churches that get around this sectarian/non-sectarian non profit distinction by forming nominally independent separate entities to operate soup kitchens/food banks, and even an idependent but religiously affiliated school.

In the case of Missouri and several other states, the prohibition is hardwired into the State constitution.

Again- I am asking is if anyone has a problem with the Supreme Court overturning a provision in a State constitution by finding it unconstitutional?

It is a state's rights issue versus a bill of rights issue.

A federal judge has the authority to rule a part of a state constitution as unlawful under the US Constitution, thus making it null and void. It would no doubt go up to the SCOTUS for review, but we're only talking about one provision rather than the entire state constitution.

In this case it is kinda tough, but I'd say if the playground is open to the public then it oughta be eligible for state funds. Otherwise no, my impression is it becomes a slippery slope to deny public money to religious institutions.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't remember the left objecting to this when the supreme court overturned the state constitutions that stated marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman.

Why would this be any different?

 

[PredFan]

If the state constitution violates the constitution, then yes, it should be overturned.

 

[2aguy]

Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.

What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.

That depends....the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land....does the State Constitution violate the rights of the individual citizens..or the Bill of Rights?

Many states and cities are violating the 2nd Amendment Rights of their citizens..so I imagine you support the Supreme Court over turning their state laws on this even if they are in their constitution...right?

 

[2aguy]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I don't think there's any overturning of a constitution issue. Rather it seems to be about what constitutes a "religious activity." Of course the founders did nto want public money going to church buildings. But, sectarian nonprofits operating playgrounds can get the money. I'm aware of churches that get around this sectarian/non-sectarian non profit distinction by forming nominally independent separate entities to operate soup kitchens/food banks, and even an idependent but religiously affiliated school.

In the case of Missouri and several other states, the prohibition is hardwired into the State constitution.

Again- I am asking is if anyone has a problem with the Supreme Court overturning a provision in a State constitution by finding it unconstitutional?

It is a state's rights issue versus a bill of rights issue.

The Bill of Rights wins...as far as I am concerned....the democrats in Southern states denied the Bill of Rights protections to blacks until they were forced to stop doing it....

 

[my2¢]

On the more general question of whether the U.S. Constitution trumps individual state constitutions the answer is "for sure".

One example regards states (Maryland, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas).that have provision in their constitution in which atheists are prohibited from holding public office. In 1961 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states could not have "religious tests" for public office. Thus while the language still remains in the state constitutions, it is unenforceable.