As tp the question posed in this paragraph”
“The Constitution’s frequent use of “state legislatures” requires two main questions to be answered. One question involves whether an entity other than the state legislature can take an action when the Constitution assigns that action to the state legislature. For example, the Constitution provides that “each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” the members of the Electoral College. Does that provision allow the state Constitution to override the state legislature’s decision as to the manner of appointing the electors? And if it does, can the courts enforce that constitutional provision to the detriment of the state legislature? In the 2020 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court used the state constitution to override the election law that the state legislature had enacted. While the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the challenges to that decision, the question remains whether that action was constitutional under the U.S. Constitution.”
I think the U.S. Constitutions presumes that states have a state Constitution that (a) acts as the supreme/basic law of the state and (b) that Constitution is/was adopted by a “legislature” or direct vote of the people of the state.
Knowing that, then we can ask if a state Constitution can explicitly prevent an action of the state legislature that the U.S. Constitution assigns to the state legislature.
I don’t think that is what we had in the case of Pennsylvania. I think the Pennsylvania state Constitution, correctly read, assigned to the state courts the ability for the courts to challenge an action by the state legislature as to the manner of electing the electors. The Pennsylvania state court simply, merely errored completely in its interpretation of the Pennsylvania state constitution as to any mandate that Constitution has on HOW the state legislature’s actions regarding elections. The Pennsylvania court errored in assuming voters had any state Constitutional right to particular state rules passed by the legislature regarding elections. I think it was a right that the Pennsylvania state supreme court invented.
I think the legal question is actually can U.S. courts rule on the legitimacy of an action by a state court, when it is an action that is presumed to call upon the state’s Constitution as a basis for the state court’s action. Can federal courts rule on state Constitutionality questions?
In the general sense yes, if the question is a matter specified by the U.S. Constitution or federal law.
With Pennsylvania the question is whether it becomes a federal court matter because the U.S. constitution directs a certain obligation and power on state legislatures - selecting electors - or if it is not a federal matter because the U.S. Constitution presumes state legislatures will carry out that responsibility in accord with their state Constitutions, and whether or not legislators meet that test can be ruled on by state courts.
My view at the moment is that the latter case is where we are at, and the state court merely errored in its decision, as to whether or not the legislature acted against the bounds of the state Constitution. But if I am correct, the question becomes can the U.S. supreme court rule that a state supreme court misinterpreted its own state Constitution.
Is it possible for the Supreme court to issue an answer that says how it thinks a state court errored, but takes no action because the SCOTUS acknowledges it cannot bind the state court on that matter?
But if I am correct, the question becomes can the U.S. supreme court rule that a state supreme court misinterpreted its own state Constitution.
Is it possible for the Supreme court to issue an answer that says how it thinks a state court errored, but takes no action because the SCOTUS acknowledges it cannot bind the state court on that matter?>>>> And that begs the question. Did the framers of all of our constitutions realize that courts would be able to make laws that they could enforce. And of course. No court can really enforce it’s legislation. The executive branches defer and enforce the courts legislative process.
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.
By "laws of any state," would this include state constitutions as well? What about amending the state constitution in a way that is in violation of the federal Constitution?
If the Constitution grants the state legislatures the power to redistrict, but the people vote to amend the state constitution to take that power away from legislatures, does it matter if opposition is "ripe" or not? The Constitution cannot be amended by de facto lateness in challenging state laws or state constitutional amendments.
If election officials or state courts ignore established election law passed by the state legislatures and signed by the governor, that should be challenged under Article VI that holds judges accountable to the federal Constitution over the state constitution.
-PJ