What does “Constitutional” really mean? The devil is in the details

Dr. Steven Taylor at PoliBlog makes an important point regarding the Hamden decision by the Supreme Court that he promises to explore in more detail later:

However, I would note the following from Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of American which notes (in what is know as the “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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, whatever else one may think of the decision, it should be duly noted that it is wholly within the purview of the Court to interpret the way by which treaties signed and ratified are to be applied to US policy.

I suspect I will have more to say later.

Give that he is a professor of political science, I await his discussion with great eagerness, despite the partisan inclination that we all suffer because we are mere humans.

         

5 Comments

  1. Again, I say the President will pull an Andrew Jackson, and, simply ignore the Supreme Court in a flurry of “protect the people” rhetoric. His party will back him up with more rhetoric and the simple minded masses will rise up against anyone whom questions.

    Constitution? We are only one propaganda campaign away from “Crystal Nacht”. This can only be countered with loud and obnoxious counter propaganda! Law alone will not save us.

  2. Constitutional, what does it mean?…the question is rather ambiguous or at least broad.

    It depends on which definitions of the word is intended, common definitions, or legal definition as applied to U S Constitution and law.

    Best I think to go backward as any halfassed lexicologist would, to the word constitute which is defined among others, as: to establish formally; found, and work forward through constitution, and finally constitutional seeking out all definitions legal and common.

    The reason I point this out is because those presently in power in this nation and the way they continually circumvent and usurp it, don’t think very much, if anything, cited in our Constitution is legally binding and/or applies to themselves unless its conveniently in their extremist right wing favor(s).

  3. The Court flat out ignored the plain language of a statute that stripped it of jurisdiction over this appeal. Actually, it’s not fair to say that the Court never even addressed the relevant statute; rather, Justice Stevens wrote an opinion that can only be called sophistic and which ended up casting aside the plain meaning of the words of the statute. Please tell me, because I really want to know, how this type of flagrant defiance of Congress’s right to enact laws can possibly increase the public’s respect for the law or the courts?

  4. DBL you said: The Court flat out ignored the plain language of a statute that stripped it of jurisdiction over this appeal.

    Yup yup yup..da supreme court dasen’t know a thing does dey?

    I bet bush is whining mad and kicking the slats out of his cradle about “his” hand picked boys finding against him.

    Errrr does thie plain language statute take presidence over Constitutional law..I friggin doubt it.

  5. precedence? I never could spell worth a hoot.

    PING:
    TITLE: Declare Supreme Court Justices Enemy Combatants
    BLOG NAME: Jon Swift
    In the Article of the Constitution that gives the President the power to designate enemy combatants there is nothing that explicitly protects members of the Supreme Court from being declared enemy combatants.

Submit a Comment