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

[Syriusly]

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.

And that has to do with a question regarding state constitution's- and religious freedom- how?

 

[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.

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?

If the Supreme Court does in fact over turn state laws- or provisions of the State Constitution- because they are unconstitutional- yes I do support that- in general.

I don't always agree with the Supreme Courts ruling- but I agree that they have the authority to overturn an unconstitutional state law or constitution.

I am sure we both are able to find Supreme Court rulings that we disagree with- but do you agree with me that the Supreme Court has the authority to make those determinations?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Well funny you should mention that.

I remember when the right objected to the supreme court overturning provisions of the state constitutions which banned same gender marriage- I remember well the whining that the 'unelected Supreme Court' was overturning the will of the people.

I just was curious whether the right cared as much about the 'will of the people' and states rights- when it comes to states rights versus religious institutions.

 

[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?

If the Supreme Court does in fact over turn state laws- or provisions of the State Constitution- because they are unconstitutional- yes I do support that- in general.

I don't always agree with the Supreme Courts ruling- but I agree that they have the authority to overturn an unconstitutional state law or constitution.

I am sure we both are able to find Supreme Court rulings that we disagree with- but do you agree with me that the Supreme Court has the authority to make those determinations?

Actually, no. They assumed that power in Marbury v. Madison and there needs to be a check on that power....9, unelected, politically appointed lawyers should not have the only say on what is or is not Constitutional.

 

[2aguy]

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?

Well funny you should mention that.

I remember when the right objected to the supreme court overturning provisions of the state constitutions which banned same gender marriage- I remember well the whining that the 'unelected Supreme Court' was overturning the will of the people.

I just was curious whether the right cared as much about the 'will of the people' and states rights- when it comes to states rights versus religious institutions.

Same gender marriages are not protected in the Constitution.....that's why. Religious institutions are actually mentioned in the First Amendment......same gender marriage is not.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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?

Insofar as I accord supremacy of federal legislation over that of states, yes. Moreover, I also accept the SCOTUS as the arbiter of the Constitutionality of all laws in the land, and a state's constitution are among the laws in the land, so again, yes.

That's not to say I think the SCOTUS justices are infallible, but rather that it is within their purview to decide such things as you've asked about.

 

[Markle]

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?

They would not be overturning the constitution. They would overturn a small part of their constitution not touching the rest.

 

[2aguy]

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?

Insofar as I accord supremacy of federal legislation over that of states, yes. Moreover, I also accept the SCOTUS as the arbiter of the Constitutionality of all laws in the land, and a state's constitution are among the laws in the land, so again, yes.

So....you believe that 5, unelected, politically appointed lawyers should determine for all time what is and is not Constitutional for a country of over 320 million people?

 

[IsaacNewton]

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.

The US Constitution is the last word, period. State constitutions all have to align with the US Constitution. On that note, the US government should not be providing direct or indirect taxpayer money to any religious organization nor should a state. Churches get tax exempt status and they are private businesses. They should not be asking the government for money. The founders understood this works both ways as they had seen what the entanglement of the church and state in Europe had wreaked on the human populations over the previous centuries. Government corrupts the church and the church corrupts the government. Both should be kept from the other.

But current in the US the fake Kristians want to BE the government and force their one religion to be the state religion in essence, so they will support all efforts to fuse the church and the government together, which is why they wanted Gorsuch so badly. He's a fanatical Kristian pretending to be an impartial judge.

The lunatics are running the asylum.

 

[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.

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?

If the Supreme Court does in fact over turn state laws- or provisions of the State Constitution- because they are unconstitutional- yes I do support that- in general.

I don't always agree with the Supreme Courts ruling- but I agree that they have the authority to overturn an unconstitutional state law or constitution.

I am sure we both are able to find Supreme Court rulings that we disagree with- but do you agree with me that the Supreme Court has the authority to make those determinations?

Actually, no. They assumed that power in Marbury v. Madison and there needs to be a check on that power....9, unelected, politically appointed lawyers should not have the only say on what is or is not Constitutional.

So when the Supreme Court overturns a state gun law as being unconstitutional- you of course object that the Supreme Court has no authority to do so.

And of course you reject Citizen's United for the same reason.

 

[martybegan]

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?

It also depends if the State Constitution gives powers to the State delegated to the Federal Government.

But considering how much recently the Court has given to the Feds what really belongs to the States, that balance appears to be thrown out the window.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Well funny you should mention that.

I remember when the right objected to the supreme court overturning provisions of the state constitutions which banned same gender marriage- I remember well the whining that the 'unelected Supreme Court' was overturning the will of the people.

I just was curious whether the right cared as much about the 'will of the people' and states rights- when it comes to states rights versus religious institutions.

Same gender marriages are not protected in the Constitution.....that's why. Religious institutions are actually mentioned in the First Amendment......same gender marriage is not.

I missed the part in the Constitution that mentions pre-schools run by churches.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Insofar as I accord supremacy of federal legislation over that of states, yes. Moreover, I also accept the SCOTUS as the arbiter of the Constitutionality of all laws in the land, and a state's constitution are among the laws in the land, so again, yes.

So....you believe that 5, unelected, politically appointed lawyers should determine for all time what is and is not Constitutional for a country of over 320 million people?

And the alternative?

California could ban hand gun ownership- and there would be no branch of government that could overturn that.

Texas could vote to reintroduce slavery- and there would be no branch of government that could say that was wrong.

 

[Muhammed]

It is not the purview of the federal government to decide what is or is not religious in nature. It's simply none of their business.

 

[12icer]

They have the constitutional power to do so. All legislation is subject to review by the Supreme court. The powers assigned, to each part of the government is clearly defined, and it is very clear that they have the power of JUDICIAL REVIEW. There is also the FACT that There is a clause that states (PPH) that no state law can lessen the rights given by the US constitution to US citizens.

 

[martybegan]

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?

If the Supreme Court does in fact over turn state laws- or provisions of the State Constitution- because they are unconstitutional- yes I do support that- in general.

I don't always agree with the Supreme Courts ruling- but I agree that they have the authority to overturn an unconstitutional state law or constitution.

I am sure we both are able to find Supreme Court rulings that we disagree with- but do you agree with me that the Supreme Court has the authority to make those determinations?

Actually, no. They assumed that power in Marbury v. Madison and there needs to be a check on that power....9, unelected, politically appointed lawyers should not have the only say on what is or is not Constitutional.

So when the Supreme Court overturns a state gun law as being unconstitutional- you of course object that the Supreme Court has no authority to do so.

And of course you reject Citizen's United for the same reason.

RKBA is explicit in the constitution, The 1st amendment only prevents congress from establishing a religion. State Religions were actually allowed prior to incorporation under the 14th amendment.

There is also a difference in that RKBA is an individual right, and the establishment clause is really a direct limitation on government.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Think about some of the supremacy clause cases that have appeared before the SCOTUS. Think about jurisdiction the SCOTUS has because of the supremacy clause...Heller comes to mind. What do people think? All of sudden because they don't care for the possibility that something they think should or shouldn't be allowed is outside the Court's jurisdiction? Well, I have news for you, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. The Court's purview does not depend on your stance on a matter.

 

[Markle]

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.

I'm kind of a bottom line sort of guy so I included the bottom line.

Preemption

The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.

The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption

 

[usmbguest5318]

Stare decisis....thus just because the SCOTUS decides one way at a point in time does not mean that decision stands in force for all time.

• 10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases

 

[Kondor3]

The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Whenever State Law conflicts with Federal Law, the US Constitution controls.

The Supreme Court defines and resolves such conflicts.

Was there anything else?