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

[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.

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.

In many of those cases, the school is not a separate legal entity or nonprofit. It operates under the auspices of the church and therefore cannot apply for anything.

 

[wjmacguffin]

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.

You're right about "separation" not appearing in the 1st Amendment. But religious neutrality requires separation. You cannot treat all faiths equally if you're in bed with one.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

Judicial Review IS the SCOTUS check on the Executive and Legislative branches to balance the powers of the triad. The truth of the matter is you simply don't like that ability to check the overreach of the Congress or Executive all the time and would prefer to be selective based on the whim of the moment.

If you want to get rid of judicial review and wipe their precedents from the books, then you'd have to say good bye to all of your 2A gun law protections upheld by SCOTUS, too. So get rid of judicial review and your Amendment II rights at the same time, FOOL! In for a fucking penny, in for a bloody pound, shit for brains!

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Citizens United didn't really change anything on the finance side of campaigns. It dealt primarily with the prohibition on speech of specific organizations 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

You're right about "separation" not appearing in the 1st Amendment. But religious neutrality requires separation. You cannot treat all faiths equally if you're in bed with one.

Where does the Constitution say States must remain neutral on religion?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Judicial Review IS the SCOTUS check on the Executive and Legislative branches to balance the powers of the triad. The truth of the matter is you simply don't like that ability to check the overreach of the Congress or Executive all the time and would prefer to be selective based on the whim of the moment.

If you want to get rid of judicial review and wipe their precedents from the books, then you'd have to say good bye to all of your 2A gun law protections upheld by SCOTUS, too. So get rid of judicial review and your Amendment II rights at the same time, FOOL! In for a fucking penny, in for a bloody pound, shit for brains!

So who checks the court when they enable overreach by the other two branches? Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

Judicial Review IS the SCOTUS check on the Executive and Legislative branches to balance the powers of the triad. The truth of the matter is you simply don't like that ability to check the overreach of the Congress or Executive all the time and would prefer to be selective based on the whim of the moment.

If you want to get rid of judicial review and wipe their precedents from the books, then you'd have to say good bye to all of your 2A gun law protections upheld by SCOTUS, too. So get rid of judicial review and your Amendment II rights at the same time, FOOL! In for a fucking penny, in for a bloody pound, shit for brains!

So who checks the court when they enable overreach by the other two branches? Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.

If you are referring to a specific case reviewed by SCOTUS, cite it! I won't be drawn into a hypothetical with a known dissembler and liar! You're still to fucking stupid to understand the full scope of Constitutional law, huh Tex!

 

[Fueri]

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.

I'd have to say they have the right if it is ruled unconstitutional. State's rights are those not expressly delegated as federal powers or prohibited by the constitution.

If it's unconstitutional we have to infer, and it would have to be successfully argued, that it falls under the umbrella of the constitution in the first place, is therefore under the purview of the federal government, and is therefore not a right a state can claim.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That is what the church is actually asking the Court to do.

The State says that their ban is in place in part so that the State is not in a position to determine what is or is not religious in nature- i.e.- is a pre-school run by a church- a religious institution or not?

 

[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.

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.

So you do agree that the Supreme Court is the body that determines whether a law is constitutional or not.

 

[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.

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

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.

See, as usual, you let your partisan bias control how you look at the Supreme Court.

When you agree with a Supreme Court decision- you have no issue with the Supreme Court exercising its authority.

When you disagree with the Supreme Court, you whine that the Supreme Court has no such Constitutional authority.

Either the Supreme Court has the authority- and is the authority- to decide whether a State law is constitutional or not- or it doesn't.

And yes- the Supreme Court has the authority in Second Amendment cases, and in religious freedom cases, and in marriage cases, and in political speech cases.

I recognize that even when I disagree with the Court's ruling- such as in Citizen's United.

 

[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.

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

Ironic- in that a religious institution is asking the federal government- through the courts0 to impose its will on states to force states to fund religious institutions.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Judicial Review IS the SCOTUS check on the Executive and Legislative branches to balance the powers of the triad. The truth of the matter is you simply don't like that ability to check the overreach of the Congress or Executive all the time and would prefer to be selective based on the whim of the moment.

If you want to get rid of judicial review and wipe their precedents from the books, then you'd have to say good bye to all of your 2A gun law protections upheld by SCOTUS, too. So get rid of judicial review and your Amendment II rights at the same time, FOOL! In for a fucking penny, in for a bloody pound, shit for brains!

So who checks the court when they enable overreach by the other two branches? Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.

If you are referring to a specific case reviewed by SCOTUS, cite it! I won't be drawn into a hypothetical with a known dissembler and liar! You're still to fucking stupid to understand the full scope of Constitutional law, huh Tex!

I don't remember the case name, but it's not hypothetical. A farmer was fined for growing grains for his own use on his property because the feds wanted to support the price of grains by restricting it's growth. The court upheld the fines even though the grain never entered commerce. So using that precedent, if the government decides they need to support the prices of vegetables, they could fine you for growing your own. In fact that same principle was used against an individual growing marijuana for personal consumption even though the government was essentially supporting and protecting an illegal market. Scalia really stepped on his dick on that one.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Depends on the city- here in San Francisco there is a program that opens up public school playgrounds to public use after school and on weekends- not all schools, but it is a nice way to add 'park land' to cities.

The case is in regards to a state program that provides a sater playground material made from recycled tires to schools for their playgrounds- I don't think anyone has disputed that the material itself would make the school/church playground safer- its being used at many other playgrounds- the only dispute is the wording of the State Constitution which prohibits direct or indirect financing of religious institutions.

It is a state rights issue versus a religious rights question.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

They are not the 'final arbiters'- Dred Scott is a perfect example of a 'bad' Supreme Court decision- that was ultimately reversed by the American people- by a Constitutional amendment.

And that can happen for any Supreme Court decision that the American people ultimately disagree with.

But its a high bar- and should be.

What is the alternative?

Again- if California decided to ban private gun ownership- who would be protecting the civil rights of those Americans in California if the Supreme Court could not overturn state laws?

Or if Texas decided to reintroduce slavery- who would protect those citizen's rights?

Looking forward to your non-response to my question.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Judicial Review IS the SCOTUS check on the Executive and Legislative branches to balance the powers of the triad. The truth of the matter is you simply don't like that ability to check the overreach of the Congress or Executive all the time and would prefer to be selective based on the whim of the moment.

If you want to get rid of judicial review and wipe their precedents from the books, then you'd have to say good bye to all of your 2A gun law protections upheld by SCOTUS, too. So get rid of judicial review and your Amendment II rights at the same time, FOOL! In for a fucking penny, in for a bloody pound, shit for brains!

So who checks the court when they enable overreach by the other two branches? Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.

The American people of course- that is what elections and Constitutional amendments are for.

I don't think anyone believes that our system is absolutely perfect and gets everything right every time.

But having courts that can provide checks to Executive or Congressional overreach is better than the alternative- having no branch of government that can say that an Executive order or a State law is unconstitutional or violates the constitutional rights of Americans.

 

[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?

Depends on the city- here in San Francisco there is a program that opens up public school playgrounds to public use after school and on weekends- not all schools, but it is a nice way to add 'park land' to cities.

The case is in regards to a state program that provides a sater playground material made from recycled tires to schools for their playgrounds- I don't think anyone has disputed that the material itself would make the school/church playground safer- its being used at many other playgrounds- the only dispute is the wording of the State Constitution which prohibits direct or indirect financing of religious institutions.

It is a state rights issue versus a religious rights question.

Actually it's a discrimination issue as I see it. Providing a safer playground for kids has nothing to do with establishing a religion.

 

[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.

If you look at history, the Court hast stepped in many times ruling on state law and state constitutional amendments. Again, if you read briefs from the following it will answer your questions:
Fletcher v. Peck
Reynolds v. Simms
Griswold v. Connecticut
Evenwald v. Abbot
And you can even use Gideon v. Wainwright where states were told they must provide indigent defense. Court superceds states all the time.
Lest I forget religious cases of Engel v. Vitale, Abington v. Schemmp, and Wisconsin v. Yoder.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Judicial Review IS the SCOTUS check on the Executive and Legislative branches to balance the powers of the triad. The truth of the matter is you simply don't like that ability to check the overreach of the Congress or Executive all the time and would prefer to be selective based on the whim of the moment.

If you want to get rid of judicial review and wipe their precedents from the books, then you'd have to say good bye to all of your 2A gun law protections upheld by SCOTUS, too. So get rid of judicial review and your Amendment II rights at the same time, FOOL! In for a fucking penny, in for a bloody pound, shit for brains!

So who checks the court when they enable overreach by the other two branches? Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.

The American people of course- that is what elections and Constitutional amendments are for.

I don't think anyone believes that our system is absolutely perfect and gets everything right every time.

But having courts that can provide checks to Executive or Congressional overreach is better than the alternative- having no branch of government that can say that an Executive order or a State law is unconstitutional or violates the constitutional rights of Americans.

Once again, who checks the courts when they are complicit in the overreach. The Constitution gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That means the good or services must cross State lines. The courts granted them the power to regulate anything that might have the most remote tangential effect on interstate commerce, whether the goods or services cross State lines or not and even if the goods are produced for personal consumption and are never entered into commerce.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Why bother having them ?

The SCOTUS wondered off the reservation a long long time ago.

But to answer your questions: No, they should not be able to comment on a States Constitution unless it impacts the federal government.

The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no laws...."

It says nothing about the states and in fact states had state sponsored religion well into the 1820's. Nobody ever objected.