Replies

Thank you for your reasoned response. However, if what you are saying is true, then why do all state cases get appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, and why is the Constitution called the Supreme Law of the Land? What land does that refer to?

I believe that the Founding Fathers listed the Bill of Rights as those that no state nor the federal government could infringe upon. That's why state cases get appealed to the highest court in the land -- the Supreme Court -- the entity that rules on the Supreme Law of the Land. If I'm wrong, I'm willing to listen.

I'm just an amateur at this, and you know we're not supposed to try this at home, but I believe that the only time State matters are to be brought to the Supreme Court is for the Supreme Court to rule upon whether the existing laws were applied properly, due process was followed, and court procedures were proper. I mean, the Supreme Court does not rule upon whether a person is guilty but upon whether the State conducted the trial properly in which the person was found guilty. Right? Sometimes I have a hard time conveying my point - I hope you understand what I'm getting at here.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, as we're a Republic (Rule of Law). But that doesn't mean that everything in the Constitution applies to the states. The Constitution sets the terms and conditions for Congress to meet and be elected, but it doesn't set those terms and conditions for the State Legislatures, does it? If a State wanted a State Senator to only serve 4 years in the State Legislature, then would you say that the conditions in Article I for a 6-year term for Senators supersede the State's desires? No.

I'm just an amateur at this, and you know we're not supposed to try this at home, but I believe that the only time State matters are to be brought to the Supreme Court is for the Supreme Court to rule upon whether the existing laws were applied properly, due process was followed, and court procedures were proper.

This is all true, however it is also the responsibility of SCOTUS to occasionally rule on whether state laws are in fact legal. Remember back two years ago when the state of Nebraska tried to pass a law banning certain types of partial birth abortion? The law was immediately brought to SCOTUS and struck down. We apparently have the inalienable right to kill babies at the moment of birth, but not to carry a gun.

the Supreme Court does not rule upon whether a person is guilty but upon whether the State conducted the trial properly in which the person was found guilty. Right?

Yes, and wouldn't the denial of a defendant's Constitutional Right, and denial of arguments asserting those Rights bring into question whether or not the trial was conducted properly -- whether due process was followed? What more egregious act could a court emit than to deny a protected Right? What and whom is the U.S. Constitution protecting, then, if a state or city judge can do this?