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

[Markle]

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?

A U.S. Supreme Court justice need not be an attorney.

The decision of the Supreme Court is not for all time. Several major decisions have been overturned. The Dred Scott decision which ruled that separate but equal was perfectly legal. It was based on a passenger train passing through Louisana.

 

[Markle]

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

Citizen's United overturned major parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The USSC upheld case law dating back over 100 years.

 

[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.

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.

The States are bound to the 2nd Amendment....so if the law goes against the 2nd Amendment the Court is ruling correctly.

Citizens United isn't against the constitution.....the first Amendment states..

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How you guys figure that the state can put limits on how much you can donate to a political campaign is mind boggling......That the court had to go in and defend it in Citizens United shows that you guys don't understand freedom.

 

[2aguy]

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?

A U.S. Supreme Court justice need not be an attorney.

The decision of the Supreme Court is not for all time. Several major decisions have been overturned. The Dred Scott decision which ruled that separate but equal was perfectly legal. It was based on a passenger train passing through Louisana.

Understood......but 5 people, regardless of their original profession, un elected, and politically appointed, cannot be the last arbiters of what the Constitution means...not for 320 million people....not for a life time appointment.

 

[2aguy]

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

Citizen's United overturned major parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The USSC upheld case law dating back over 100 years.

McCain-Feingold was the incumbent politician protection act.....it limited the ability to run a campaign against a politician who was already in office...that is why mccain supported it.....

The ability to spend as much money as you want to support the candidate you want is what freedom is all about...when the government can limit that....they limit your ability to check government power.

 

[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.

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

yeah..that would be the "prohibiting the free exercise..." part of the First Amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[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?

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.

No...the 2nd Amendment explains why California can't do that....and Texas can't do that because slavery is theft, and stealing is illegal. The government exists to protect the Rights of the individual...and the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness....as written in the Declaration of Independence, explains why we had to write down the limitations placed on the various levels of the government...since too many people don't understand them to begin with.

 

[JBond]

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.

If MO acted in an unconstitutional manner, it should be overturned. It is a very interesting case. Private schools want to be eligible for the same grants as government mandated schools. Government mandated schools piss money away, because they know more money is guaranteed. Private schools operate in a much more frugal manner. Public bs private colleges are a whole different ballgame.

 

[Bush92]

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.

See Fletcher vs. Peck and reference Article III powers.

 

[Bush92]

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.

See also Reynolds v Simms.

 

[Bush92]

I think it opens up a can of worms. See also Evenwald v Abbot.

 

[Bush92]

See Griswold v. Connecticut

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Very few if any school playgrounds are open to the public, including public schools, they are restricted to their students and staff. The real question is the program really about keeping kids safer on playgrounds or not?

 

[EverCurious]

Alaska had to change it's State Constitution because of the war on drugs re pot legalization back in the 90s. It never went to the SCOTUS because well... we're in the 9th heh

 

[easyt65]

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.

Ironic - the Constitution protects freedom of religion yet the federal govt through the courts is about to possibly impose its will on religion (again).

 

[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?

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.

The one huge difference being that the us constitution is silent in regards to marriage. It s not silent on the establishment and free exercise of religion

 

[wjmacguffin]

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.

If we use the US Constitution as a guide, then yes.

First, the Constitution doesn't make any difference between elected or unelected judges. So calling SCOTUS "an unelected" group is superfluous. Unless the Constitution is changed, it's legal.

Likewise, all state's laws (including state constitutions) must be in line with the US Constitution. If a state constitution runs counter to the US Constitution, then the state one must be changed. That's how a federal system works.

And please note I'm NOT saying the fed gov't supersedes all state laws. I'm not. But when a state law is against the US Constitution, then the state law must change.

 

[wjmacguffin]

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 1st Amendment has been repeatedly (and legally) interpreted to mean the gov't must remain neutral towards religion. No supporting one faith over another, but no denigrating one faith over another either. Therefore, the question "should SCOTUS overturn a state constitution" can't be answered accurately. It depends on the provision itself.

If a state constitution said, "Christianity will be the official religion of our state," then yes — SCOTUS should overturn it because that's not neutral.

If a state constitution said, "No government funds will be spent on any religious organization," then no — SCOTUS should leave it alone because it's neutral. No one faith is singled out for good or bad.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Seems more like a "missed formality".

The case involves a Lutheran church in Missouri that operates a preschool and day care. It sought to improve its playground by applying for the state’s scrap-tire grant program, which provides money to install safe, rubberized ground coverings.

The "child care / learning center" should have applied, not the church.

 

[whitehall]

The Civil War proved that the states are subservient to the federal government. The Supreme Court determines (or they should) whether laws are Constitutional and therefore an amendment to a state constitution has to pass muster in the U.S. Constitution which is the law of the land. It should be noted that the so-called "separation of church and state" statute does not appear in the Constitution. It was a creation of the Supreme Court and the majority opinion was written by a former KKK member appointed by FDR.