Replies

You're wrong, states are free to make laws expanding individual rights or in fact creating rights. The courts are constrained by the Constitution and the laws enacted by Congress, theoretically. If not, then there is no reason for legislatures. All we need is a Federal Judiciary and the Constitution. What exactly is the purpose of a legislature described in the Constitution if not to make laws which are the Supreme Law of the Land? Can judges ignore laws and treaties passed by Congress and signed by the executive if they wish? Where does the Constitution authorize an Air Force? Where does the Constitution make rape a criminal act punishable by certain penalties?

The Constitution is not a set of laws, it is a blueprint for government and a statement of individual rights. Rights and liberty interests are entirely different matters. Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and liberty interests are legislated by legislatures.

Finally there are three elements to the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, the Laws of the US and treaties. By definition, any law or treaty that in unconstituional can not be a law or a treaty. It is the defintion and deciders of Constituionality that cause so much angst in this country. The federal judicary.

Can judges ignore laws and treaties passed by Congress and signed by the executive if they wish?

If they contradicted the Constitution, yes.

Where does the Constitution authorize an Air Force? Where does the Constitution make rape a criminal act punishable by certain penalties?

Wishful thinking isn't gonna make your argument any stronger. The fact that you don't like that Federal Constitution as the "Supreme Law of the Land" isn't gonna make it anything but what it itself claims to be. Your arguments are spurious because they would not contradict the nature of the Constitution as supreme. If for example the Constitution forbade the creation of an Air force we couldn't have one without some type of amendment. But it does not forbid it, so its supremacy is not contradicted by such a law. Lets take the wording of Article VI Clause II and put it in a different context to see what I mean.

Article VI clause II "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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Lets make it read...

"That the ballgame shall be played is the supreme rule; and the players of every team shall be bound thereby, the inclement weather on any given day notwithstanding."

I'm sorry it conflicts with your wish that the states have sovereignty over their own constitutions and laws, but they don't.