A question on a matter of law

[stephpd]

Moderators: feel free to move this to the appropriate section or delete it if I'm out of line and this topic doesn't belong here.

The other thread that is about the Old Country Buffet is getting quite large and this seems to be related to the underlying issues and I am looking for some clarification.


Correct me if I'm wrong, I always have a hard time understanding all this legal stuff.

Rulings from the Supreme court trumps what's written in the constitution. Even if it is clearly a direct contradiction to what is written and agreed upon by a significant or major majority. I can't remember which is 2/3 and which is 3/4. But I know it takes many more people and more then 50% +1 to get some thing put into the constitution.

What recourse do we have if the Supreme Court rules in a case that is contradictory to the Constitution?



The second question has do do with court rulings. Each state have their own Supreme Courts. Do states have any obligation to accept rulings from other states if it contradicts previous rulings in their own state? Or accept rulings from other states if said state has no ruling?


Just trying to understand the pecking order and which rulings trump which. I see people here quoting cases and saying this one beats that one.

And I assume The Supreme Court trumps the states Supreme Courts.


And again I apologize if this is posted in the wrong place or deemed inappropriate discussion for the board.

[noofus]

IANAL but here is my understanding:

Originally Posted by stephpd

Rulings from the Supreme court trumps what's written in the constitution. Even if it is clearly a direct contradiction to what is written and agreed upon by a significant or major majority. I can't remember which is 2/3 and which is 3/4. But I know it takes many more people and more then 50% +1 to get some thing put into the constitution.

I believe a simple majority is needed in both house and senate to propose a constitutional amendment, upon which you need 3/4th of the states to ratify.

What recourse do we have if the Supreme Court rules in a case that is contradictory to the Constitution?

I'm not sure here - but technically the SCOTUS's job is to interpret to constitution. So in a sense, what they rule is what the constitution is trying to say

The second question has do do with court rulings. Each state have their own Supreme Courts. Do states have any obligation to accept rulings from other states if it contradicts previous rulings in their own state? Or accept rulings from other states if said state has no ruling?

No states have no obligation to each other's rulings although I have seen cases where one state uses another state's ruling on a similar law to make its own decisions. But this doesnt always make sense as another state may have entirely different laws and thus their rulings wont apply

Just trying to understand the pecking order and which rulings trump which. I see people here quoting cases and saying this one beats that one.

And I assume The Supreme Court trumps the states Supreme Courts.

Only in terms of federal law. SCOTUS has no power to rule over PA's laws. The constitution clearly states what is a federal power, and states clearly that anything the US constitution doesnt enumerate is a power left to the states.

[headcase]

In respect to one state respecting the rulings of another state, this has been discussed and ruled on by the SCOTUS. The Constitution has what is known as The Full Faith and Credit Clause. This clause states that, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." How this has been interpreted is that each state must respect judgements and records of other states, except where the state in question has laws that directly contridict these judments. It is also mainly used to ensure that a legal record that is admitted as evidence in one state, has to be recognized in the same manner in all states. Same sex marriage proponents have been trying to use this clause to enforce the rights granted them by the state that they were married in, in all other states. That is why many states rushed anti same sex marriage laws onto the books.

As far as the SCOTUS overruling the Constitution, as was said, their job is to interpret the meaning of the Constitution as it pretains to specific cases. Once they rule on a subject, it is very hard to get them to revisit an earlier interpretation.

Putting something into the Constitution is is done by Amendment. Amending the Constitution is a two-part process: amendments must be proposed and then they must be ratified. Amendments can be proposed one of two ways. The only way that has been used to date is through a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress. Alternatively, two-thirds of the legislatures of the States can call a Constitutional Convention to consider one or more amendments. This second method has never been used, and it is unclear exactly how, in practice, such a Constitutional Convention would work.

Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states, a process called ratification. Depending on the amendment, this requires either the state legislatures or special state conventions to approve the amendment by simple majority vote. Amendments generally go to state legislatures to be ratified, only the Twenty-first Amendment called for special state conventions.

Unlike many other constitutions, amendments to the U.S. constitution are appended to the existing body of the text without altering or removing what already exists. There is no provision for deleting either obsolete text or rescinded provisions.

[stephpd]

Thanks, headcase.

Not sure your screen name is appropriate unless people think your crazy for knowing how the law works and able to articulate your thoughts well.

I remember vaguely the civics course I took in high school and the latter part dealing with the Constitution is what I believe I was taught.

But time passes and thing get fuzzy.

Except for prohibition, has the Constitution ever been reversed? If the list is lengthy please disregard.

Or has the Supreme Court ever over ruled itself? Time may have the effect that they might. Is it possible that the Heller case in D.C might overturn Miller? Or are they separate issues?

If you don't want to reply I understand.

I have a hard time with all the legalese and the twisting of words that lawyers use. It hurt my little brain reading that stuff and for the life of me have to have it explained in a more common use of the English language.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by stephpd

Thanks, headcase.

Not sure your screen name is appropriate unless people think your crazy for knowing how the law works and able to articulate your thoughts well.

I remember vaguely the civics course I took in high school and the latter part dealing with the Constitution is what I believe I was taught.

But time passes and thing get fuzzy.

Except for prohibition, has the Constitution ever been reversed? If the list is lengthy please disregard.

Or has the Supreme Court ever over ruled itself? Time may have the effect that they might. Is it possible that the Heller case in D.C might overturn Miller? Or are they separate issues?

If you don't want to reply I understand.

I have a hard time with all the legalese and the twisting of words that lawyers use. It hurt my little brain reading that stuff and for the life of me have to have it explained in a more common use of the English language.

While I love to debate law, among other things, and I tend to remember most of what I read, I often use the internet to search facts I am fuzzy on or for direct quotes. The first half of my post was from memory, the part on amendments was almost word for word taken from wikipedia.
I read. A lot. The other half usually freaks out on me about twice a year so I donate most of my books to the local library. Then I borrow them and get fined for returning them late, lol. I can't tell you how many times I have had this conversation with the librarian:

Her: "That will be $6.00 please.
Me: "But I donated those books to you. Jeesh."

Here is a good explanation of what happens when we disagree with SCOTUS rulings:
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, 4 clearly were enacted to overturn unpopular Supreme Court decisions. The 11th Amendment overturned Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) by guaranteeing the immunity of states from lawsuits by citizens of another state or a foreign country. The 14th Amendment nullified Scott v. Sandford (1857) by guaranteeing the civil rights and citizenship of African Americans. The 16th Amendment overrode Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895) by giving Congress the power to levy an income tax. The 26th Amendment negated Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) by permitting 18-year-olds to vote in state elections. Many other attempts to enact constitutional amendments to override Supreme Court decisions have failed.

Congress has a rather simple and direct way to negate unpopular decisions of the Court that have nullified federal statutes: It can pass a new law. For example, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to overturn the Court's decision in Ward's Cove Packing Company v. Atonio (1989). In Ward's Cove, the Court decided that an individual proving discrimination by an employer could still be dismissed or demoted from a desired job as long as the employer could prove that the discriminating practice was necessary to maintain his business. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 makes it illegal for an employer to claim “business necessity” as a reason for intentional job discrimination against an individual based on race, color, ethnic origin, and gender.

Although most bills that have been introduced to overturn Supreme Court decisions have not been passed, the power of Congress to negate certain kinds of Court decisions is an important part of the American constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

The SCOTUS can and does sometimes reverse previous decisions, but it is rare. They have a long standing policy of letting previous rulings stand, to keep continuity and predictability in the law.