Confusion about "the law of the land"

GFR7

New member
4990640_orig.jpg


"Opinions are sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. But they aren't law.

In the early days of our government, Supreme Court opinions were so insignificant that Congress didn't bother preserving them. Opinions were left to individuals to keep track of, and were not congressionally-funded into official records until 1874, almost a century after our independence. Before Congress stepped in, Court records were printed and kept under copyright by private citizens and reporters, who sold them for profit.

Opinions of the Court were kept "loosey-goosey" for decades, and not preserved with certified integrity. Actual statute was held officially and carefully, in order to preserve its certainty as law.
..................

To this day, the actual production of Court opinions is done by contract to private entities. ...
By contrast, actual federal code, the statute that is "on the books" because it went through the constitutional process of lawmaking, remains meticulously and faithfully produced by the U.S. government, start to finish.

Supreme Court opinions have always been treated as inferior to the United States code--because they are not the "law of the land.""

http://www.tomhoefling.com/home/opinions-are-sometimes-right-and-sometimes-wrong-but-they-arent-law
 

PureX

Well-known member
All courts interpret the laws that already exist, relative to their specific cases. But the interpretations of the higher courts tend to stand as precedent for making their decisions regarding similar claims, from then on.
 

GFR7

New member
All courts interpret the laws that already exist, relative to their specific cases. But the interpretations of the higher courts tend to stand as precedent for making their decisions regarding similar claims, from then on.
But his point is valid, no? :think: SCOTUS does not create laws, but interprets and gives opinions. Those opinions may be in error. Congress creates laws.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
Congress needs to create a new law removing the sitting judges on the supreme court every eleven years
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Supreme Court opinions have always been treated as inferior to the United States code--because they are not the "law of the land."

Good stuff Maynard.

"The states and the governors of those states, along with the legislatures, need to take up the cause of liberty and limited federal power. They can do that by nullifying the laws they believe are unconstitutional."
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/04/the-supreme-court-is-invalidating-the-founders-intent/

The citizenry of our nation can understand the Constitution and the founding documents if they just understand the original intent.

0000649_original-intent-paperbackb16_300.gif
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
But his point is valid, no? :think: SCOTUS does not create laws, but interprets and gives opinions. Those opinions may be in error. Congress creates laws.
He's another angry, bone-headed layman with a skewed and selective eye for history. Judicial review has long been established (see: Marbury v. Madison) and working on two hundred acts of Congress have fallen under that examination. Congress, the body making the laws, recognizes the Court's authority. The power, while not explicitly stated in the Constitution was common enough to be understood and applied in state courts prior to the Constitutional Convention. Articles 3 and 4 law the foundation of that understanding.

Wiki actually has a great summary of all of this, but this is the part you should pay attention to. It's well framed:

The power of judicial review has been implied from these provisions based on the following reasoning. It is the inherent duty of the courts to determine the applicable law in any given case. The Supremacy Clause says "[t]his Constitution" is the "supreme law of the land." The Constitution therefore is the fundamental law of the United States. Federal statutes are the law of the land only when they are "made in pursuance" of the Constitution. State constitutions and statutes are valid only if they are consistent with the Constitution. Any law contrary to the Constitution is void. The federal judicial power extends to all cases "arising under this Constitution." As part of their inherent duty to determine the law, the federal courts have the duty to interpret and apply the Constitution and to decide whether a federal or state statute conflicts with the Constitution. All judges are bound to follow the Constitution. If there is a conflict, the federal courts have a duty to follow the Constitution and to treat the conflicting statute as unenforceable. The Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution, so the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide whether statutes are consistent with the Constitution.​

So don't lean on the understanding of someone who isn't educated in the law when the subject is the law.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Rely on hand picked leftwing judicial activists, as they get it right every time.
No, rely on the fact of the matter, which was just presented. Not that I expect that to make much sense to you. You're about to completely miss the point by pointing, instead, to case results you don't like, which has nothing to do with the authority of the Court in review and isn't a rebuttal of anything I set out.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Rely on hand picked leftwing judicial activists, as they get it right every time.


No, rely on the fact of the matter, which was just presented. Not that I expect that to make much sense to you. You're about to completely miss the point by pointing, instead, to case results you don't like, which has nothing to do with the authority of the Court in review and isn't a rebuttal of anything I set out.

If you and a friend argue over a key element in a book that you've both read, what would you do to prove your case to your friend?

I'd find out what the author of the book had in mind when he or she wrote it.

When it comes to our founding documents, including that of the Constitution, the writings of the Founding Fathers are very clear; all that a person has to do is look at their "original intent".
 

ok doser

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Rely on hand picked leftwing judicial activists, as they get it right every time.




If you and a friend argue over a key element in a book that you've both read, what would you do to prove your case to your friend?

I'd find out what the author of the book had in mind when he or she wrote it.

When it comes to our founding documents, including that of the Constitution, the writings of the Founding Fathers are very clear; all that a person has to do is look at their "original intent".



but but but they owned slaves therefore something
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Or she just broke the law.

Breaking the law does not normally allow a court to find you in contempt

No, she effectively gave the court the finger. Courts and judges don't appreciate that. She can purge her contempt by doing her job.
she made a choice. Lets see who caves first.
 

GFR7

New member
He's another angry, bone-headed layman with a skewed and selective eye for history. Judicial review has long been established (see: Marbury v. Madison) and working on two hundred acts of Congress have fallen under that examination. Congress, the body making the laws, recognizes the Court's authority. The power, while not explicitly stated in the Constitution was common enough to be understood and applied in state courts prior to the Constitutional Convention. Articles 3 and 4 law the foundation of that understanding.

Wiki actually has a great summary of all of this, but this is the part you should pay attention to. It's well framed:

The power of judicial review has been implied from these provisions based on the following reasoning. It is the inherent duty of the courts to determine the applicable law in any given case. The Supremacy Clause says "[t]his Constitution" is the "supreme law of the land." The Constitution therefore is the fundamental law of the United States. Federal statutes are the law of the land only when they are "made in pursuance" of the Constitution. State constitutions and statutes are valid only if they are consistent with the Constitution. Any law contrary to the Constitution is void. The federal judicial power extends to all cases "arising under this Constitution." As part of their inherent duty to determine the law, the federal courts have the duty to interpret and apply the Constitution and to decide whether a federal or state statute conflicts with the Constitution. All judges are bound to follow the Constitution. If there is a conflict, the federal courts have a duty to follow the Constitution and to treat the conflicting statute as unenforceable. The Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution, so the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide whether statutes are consistent with the Constitution.​

So don't lean on the understanding of someone who isn't educated in the law when the subject is the law.
Notwithstanding, there remains a gaping contradiction between the idea that it's unconstitutional to prevent 2 men marrying, and the idea that this is only now the law of the land.

Marriage was always about bringing the complementary sexes together for procreation; that we allow infertile couples to marry doesn't alter this.

Formidable dissenting opinions of the other Justices, and a counter-intuitive sense of what is proposed, make for a conflict not easily dispersed.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
If you and a friend argue over a key element in a book that you've both read, what would you do to prove your case to your friend?
That's not what's happening here. First, we aren't friends. Second, we aren't equals when it comes to an understanding of the law. Third, I'm not arguing. I'm telling you what is and you're mostly trying to tell everyone what you feel should be. Okay, feel away, but don't confuse it with more than that.

I'd find out what the author of the book had in mind when he or she wrote it.
Which is why women can't vote? Like I said, there's the principle in play and there's our steady attempt to live up to that. Or, if you like (or if you don't) there's an evolutionary element to that document.

When it comes to our founding documents, including that of the Constitution, the writings of the Founding Fathers are very clear; all that a person has to do is look at their "original intent".
Which brings up an interesting question, how many slaves is too many slaves? :rolleyes:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Notwithstanding, there remains a gaping contradiction between the idea that it's unconstitutional to prevent 2 men marrying, and the idea that this is only now the law of the land.
Substitute race mixing or women voting, etc. There's no gaping contradiction, only prejudice at opposition to the founding principles that were reserved in practice for white men once upon a time. Mostly it's been a case of knowing better but acting in accord with dominant social mores and the like. But over time we have a way of seeing that and taking action on it, which is why your wife or mother can vote.

Marriage was always about bringing the complementary sexes together for procreation; that we allow infertile couples to marry doesn't alter this.
A nice try but there's little truth to it. Or, marriage has typically involved children and certainly there can be a societal interest attached to that, which is why we reward people who have kids, give them tax breaks, by way of. But were marriage predicated on that we'd require it or at least ask. We do neither.

Marriage has only always been about the desire of two people, fertile or barren, ancient or in the bloom of youth, rich or poor to live together in a union of mind and soul and body. The rest, however glorious or incomplete, is epilogue to that. And the notion that we "allow" people to marry misses a rather foundational point of the document. We recognize rights. We protect rights. And everyone stands equal in their possession, but we don't cobble them, even if it takes us a hundred years or better to fulfill the promise of that notion.

Formidable dissenting opinions of the other Justices,
There frequently are, as with anything.

and a counter-intuitive sense of what is proposed,
Not inherently. Don't conflate your bias with an objective necessity.

make for a conflict not easily dispersed.
Same thing was true for desegregation.
 
Top