Can a state ignore the Constitution

[Kiljan Arslan]

I would like to ask the peolpe here what are your feelings on some peolpes claim that the Constitution is only meant to apply to the US itself, and that it in no way applys to the states, basicly saying that a state dosnot have to abide by it accept where specificly dictated so say a state could ignore the 2nd Amendment or other amendments if it wanted?

[Captain Blackadder]

basically No the 14th amendment whic is worderd as follows

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Means that States cannot overide the constitution it applies to them just as much as it does to the federal goverment. Since if the states ignore any part of the constitution they are infringing on citizens rights.

[removeduser_487563287433]

In theory no, in practice yes.

[Bokks]

Captain Blackadder got it.
States do tend to try, just as Ferrets said, like when that Neo-Nazi parade was going to march through... was it Chicago? The state supreme court ruled that the city ordinance had the power to jack up a new tax for the nazi march to go through the town, but the supreme court of the US said that it was unconstitutional as the astronomical prices were far too high.
Little Rock also comes to mind.
Ultimately, though, the constitution trumps everything, not just the states but the federal government and all its little constituences.
Plus when a state becomes a state it must swear to abide by the laws set forth in the constitution, so there you see the fact that if a state really was a state it would have to do so.

[Rush Limbaugh]

144th amendment was never properly ratified. It makes us all subjects of the US and should be abolished. However I believe the supremacy clause is what makes it unlawful for states to ignore the constitution.

A stste may try to ignore the constitution butt they rarely succeed. Now the federal government and SCOTUS ignore it all the time. But thats a topic for another day.

[Bokks]

I can definately see what you have against the 14th amendment (I assume you meant the 14th, as we haven't gotten quite 144 amendments yet ) but what was so "illegal" about its ratification? 1868, that was what, Johnsons administration right? It's a miracle that any legislation of any kind was passed at all.
While I see that it is obviously a product of the then-recently finished Civil War, I see nothing that would in anyway diminish your rights anyway. If you tired to rebel against the US obivously you hate the system, so why should you be protected from it? Or actually, in the case, be elected to run it?
And it has clauses that would allow someone to be able to run anyway, but think about it; a guy that tried to overthrow the government being elected to lead it? Doesn't sound very kosher.

Anyway, the issue about "SCOTUS" is quite obviously an issue for the last few days, but if that is what you truly believe there is obviously nothing I can do to stop you, nor would I want to. If you think that the very people who have dedicated their lives to the cause know less than you about the constitutionality of the decisions they make than maybe you should find a way to get yourself appointed to the courts.

[Spurius]

In theory no, in practice yes.

Funny enough Kurt Godel would agree with you. He nearly got himself into trouble with his immigration review. He charged the judge on the constitution in quite a few regards, making a real good case - not strange, considering his hobbies - and he actually pissed off the judge so bad, one of his friends had to stomp his foot to shut him up, or he'd not have gotten in.

I forgot the details but apparently putting the US Constitution into self-destruct mode is not undoable. I think his main example showed a perfectly legal coup d'etat.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Rush so should the 13th amenment be abollished to? I thought you say you fallow the constitution or is this a pick and choose kind of thing?

[chilon]

The Constitution was written to encompass such questions.

The answer is No, States may not ignore the Constitution.


Of course, neither can the US President ignore the Constitution but that is precisely what Dubya Bush has done and Cheney's support of Unitary Executive Theory is explicitly anti-US Constitution.

[Rush Limbaugh]

quite 144 amendments yet

Oh my Rush made a typo. You got me for once.

Rush so should the 13th amenment be abollished to?

Oh let me play the gotcha game/ Whats a amenment? I leave abollished for another day.

Now are you speaking of the original 13th amendment or the one we have today? You do realise all these reconstruction amendments were unconstitutional. The Southern states had no real representation.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Really Rush are you sure this isn't a case of someone saying somethings unconstitutional because they don't like it?

I mean I don't like the 2nd Amendment because it only says the the right to bear arms leaving it so one could claim that a person could own a machine gun, however that dosn't mean I think its unconstitutional.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Really Rush are you sure this isn't a case of someone saying somethings unconstitutional because they don't like it?

Im sure. Did the Southern states have legally elected governments at the time?

I mean I don't like the 2nd Amendment because it only says the the right to bear arms leaving it so one could claim that a person could own a machine gun, however that dosn't mean I think its unconstitutional.

The Bill of Rights cannot be unconstitutional

So tell me what does the 13th amendment say?

[Kiljan Arslan]

THe bill of RIghts are amendemments to the constitution rush they can be changed under the Constitution to be unconstitutional if the peolpe so wish.

Rush most of the states you are talking about had not been readmitted to the union so they were in all practical considerations terretories.

What dose the 13th Amendment say, you ask?

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

[Rush Limbaugh]

THe bill of RIghts are amendemments to the constitution rush they can be changed under the Constitution to be unconstitutional if the peolpe so wish.

No they cannot.

Rush most of the states you are talking about had not been readmitted to the union so they were in all practical considerations terretories.

Nope they all were readmitted.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

Thats the new one. How about the original?

[Caelius]

Oh god....

To answer the OP: No, they cannot. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Other than I that I strongly recommend that any free thinking person who comes across this thread ignore Rush and his antics.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Really RUsh they all were by 1868?



Rush so where dose it say they cannot?


The orrgional

my source http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend13.htm

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
XIII - Slavery Abolished
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amend1.htm#13
1. Neithher slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.





http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am13


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...dmentxiii.html
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Rush Limbaugh]

Other than I that I strongly recommend that free thinking person who comes across this thread ignore Rush and his antics.

What antics. I said they couldnt either.

History of the Original 13th & 14th Amendments

The Fourteenth Amendment has had precisely the effect that its nineteenth-century Republican party supporters intended it to have:[B] it has greatly centralized power in Washington, D.C., and has subjected Americans to the kind of judicial tyranny that Thomas Jefferson warned about when he described federal judges as those who would be constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. It s time for all Americans to reexamine the official history of the Civil War and its aftermath as taught by paid government propagandists in the public schools for the past 135 years.[/B

The orrgional

my source http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend13.htm

Let the truth set you free

The "real" 13th Amendment was ratified by three-fourths of the Union states before the War of 1812. It placed into the U.S. Constitution a specific ban against titles of nobility, and defined a penalty for those who accepted such titles. That penalty was a loss of citizenship and a loss of eligibility for public office.

My friend, the common law judge, explained to me that the jury had reached a unanimous verdict that the ban on titles of nobility had, indeed, been duly ratified as a lawful amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. By banning titles of nobility and defining the penalty for using them, the original 13th Amendment was specifically intended to keep bar members out of public offices throughout America.

No wonder they dont want you to know .

supremelaw.org

[Kiljan Arslan]

Yes Rush I am going to trust a site that is owned by a guy who claims that the IRS is a "criminal" orginization calls himselg a "Private Attorney General" and when sites debunked his claims he sued them quite unsucessfully in court.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Yeah he and I made it all up

Four years after Mr. Jarvis made that speech, on the Thirtieth anniversary of the founding of Phi Beta Kappa, the State Legislature of Maryland was preparing to take an extraordinary step. Meeting on Christmas Day in 1810, this body ratified the original Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting Titles of Nobility and Honour and describing a Draconian penalty for its violation:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

Thats the original 13th amendment.

The Original Thirteenth Amendment:
Titles of Nobility and Honour,

The Constitution For The United States
Its Sources and Its Application

The Original Thirteenth Amendment
Ratified March 12, 1819

The Founders held an intense disdain and distrust of "Nobility" as a result of a long history, during Colonial times, of abuses and excesses against the Rights of Man and the established Common Law and Constitutions by the "Nobility", and therefore placed in the new Constitution two injunctions against acceptance of Titles of Nobility or Honor or emoluments from external sources. The Revolutionary War for Independence was primarily waged to eliminate these abuses and excesses of the "Nobility" and the "Monied Classes" from the life of the Nation, recognizing the Equality of all men.

As there was no penalty attached to a title of nobility or honor in the Constitution as originally ratified, the Original Thirteenth Amendment was proposed in December of 1809 to institute penalty for accepting or using a "Title of Nobility or Honor" to set oneself apart from, or superior to, or possessing of any special privileges or immunities not available to any other citizen of the United States, and to eliminate the widespread use of "emoluments" as bribery and graft of the legislatures and judiciary used to further the causes and positions of "Special Interests". It was an attempt to keep politicians and civil servants "Honest" in their service to the citizens.

Would you like more? There is so much about the constitution that people are totally clueless on.

[chilon]

Would you like more? There is so much about the constitution that people are totally clueless on.

How would you describe how you believe the Constitution should be interpreted by Judges?