You know that's false. The Constitution says that the Constitution, and the laws passed in pursuance, shall be the supreme law of the land.
You don't fool anybody who doesn't want to be fooled.
Walt
WP: You know that's false. The Constitution says that the Constitution, and the laws passed in pursuance, shall be the supreme law of the land. You don't fool anybody who doesn't want to be fooled.
We’ve been over this before (repeatedly). Are you suggesting that Congress may pass a law (prohibiting all political speech, for example) “in pursuance” of one part of the Constitution (the ‘common welfare’ clause) that would somehow free the federal government from all limits imposed by another part of the Constitution (the First Amendment, in this case)? And that such a simple act of Congress would be constitutional and somehow supercede part of the Constitution itself (voiding the First Amendment, in this example, as well as Article V)? You have never responded to this (or any similar) hypothetical, apparently because your ridiculous argument can not pass even the most elementary of tests. (It would seem that you "want to be fooled" by your own asinine claims. ;>) No simple act of Congress can modify or repeal any constitutional amendment – including (no matter how much you may wish it) the Tenth Amendment...
Better luck next time!
;>)
The Constitution says that the Constitution, and the laws passed in pursuance, shall be the supreme law of the land.
Walt, I'm impressed.
If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act must govern the case to which they both apply.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US Cranch, (1803).
Laws can be changed by congress, the Constitition only by amendment and approval from the states. The hierarchy here is still with the Constitition being the supreme law of the land, followed by legislative acts. Here Justice Marshall explains why we have a written Constitution,
This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments. The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited, and that those limits may not he mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.
The legislature cannot pass legislation that expands the powers of government, that can only be achieved by an amendment. If the legislature could simply pass a law granting itself (or even a President) more powers, then we'd have no need for a "written" Constitution.
But don't forget that Marshall also delivers this gem as well,
That the people have an original right to establish for their ... government, such principles, as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
Well, I did leave one word out. The first line actually reads like this,
That the people have an original right to establish for their future government, such principles, as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected.
Considering he wrote this in 1803, I wonder what he meant. < /sarcasm >