Which constitutional laws can be proven to have been irretrievably weakened or neutralized during the last several administrations? Which ones have the Supreme Court been eyeing to tackle? Which ones are seriously on the table for rectification via an amendment?
I look forward to your feedback.
This seems certain to end up in IMHO or GD, but one thing I would say is that the U.S. Supreme Court is limited in what it “would like to tackle”–whatever the desires of some of its members, it can only rule on cases brought to it on appeal from lower courts, and then only when the case is granted “certiorari,” i.e. at least four of the nine members agree that the case has constitutional issues worth hearing. The Supreme Court does not issue–as top courts in other countries do–“advisory opinions” on existing or pending law.
I think we need clarification of what the OP means by “constitutional laws.” Does the OP mean to ask whether certain parts of the constitution have been weakened? Because that’s a different question than whether certain “laws” or statutes have been weakened.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I mean constitutional laws, as in the laws that have been ratified and amended and enshrined in the United States Constitution.
David, I think I’m still not getting you and I hope you can clear this up for me. The Constitution, and its amendments, are not exactly laws. They are a governmental framework (possible better analogy here?) within which laws can be enacted. The constitution can’t be unconstitutional; only laws enacted by Congress, or executive actions by the president, can be found to be unconstitutional.
There are other circumstances in which the Supremes might end up ruling on the unconstitutionality of state laws and actions, and these can in fact be quite consequential–eg, Loving v Virginia, or Hollingsworth v Perry, but I’m not sure if that’s what your question is about.
This is hardly a “General Question”, answerable with a specific, factual answer. I’ve suggested someone should perhaps consider moving it to GD, where it undoubtedly will end up anyway.
Probably you are right, but I’m still not sure I have a firm grip on what the question is.
Thanks TSBG. I was going by the wikipedia explanation of the laws of the the US
from wikipedia " codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States" but perhaps I should have narrowed my question to state laws. I wanted to tackle the need for new amendments to the US Constitution. if there is any movement in that direction. If there is what would some telltale signs be? Which Articles of the Constitution are on the Supreme Court’s agenda or Congress/Senate’s agenda for some kind of revision?
The law of the United States comprises many levels[1] of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of acts of Congress,[2] treaties ratified by the Senate,[3] regulations promulgated by the executive branch,[4] and case law originating from the federal judiciary.[5] The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of general and permanent federal statutory law.
I agree it is a weird question.
The Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 was properly concluded and was binding as the law of the land per the Constitution.
In 2002, President Bush decided to withdraw from the treaty, in accordance with the treaty’s provisions. Therefore, the US no longer abides by the treaty, and the whole process was 100% constitutional in process, from beginning to end.
There’s probably thousands of similar examples of treaties and statutes that are all perfectly fine, but have been superceded by a variety of events, such as expiration of temporary laws, changes in government policies through subsequent laws, and so on.
Thanks David. This is a very difficult question to address and why I still think think this thread will end up in GD or IMHO.
New amendments to the Constitution are very difficult to enact.
Welcome to LexisNexis - Choose Your Path
The ERA amendment was the last really serious attempt to amend the constitution and it came agonizingly close but failed despite bipartisan support:
Equal Rights Amendment - Wikipedia
There is some agitation on the extreme right to repeal the 17th amendment, I don’t know why, but this is a fringe movement:
Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
As I said before, there may be some articles of the Constitution that some member of the SC might like to interpret or re-interpret according to their beliefs, but that reinterpretation must wait on that cases that come to the court for consideration.
Thanks Ravenman. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times (the 18th Amendment was later rescinded with the 21st Amendment). I’m simply asking if any more amendments look likely any time soon. From my reading the 27th Amendment …
“was first proposed on September 25, 1789, but wasn’t fully ratified for more than 200 years.”
It has been a while since the US has enacted any amendments. Are there any Articles that have garnered enough nationwide criticism that might warrant further amendments?
Okay, but that isn’t what you asked in the OP, really. And the answer is no, no amendments are expected in the foreseeable future.
I don’t know what you mean by “Articles” in this sentence.
Well, the 3/5ths Rule is pretty toothless these days…
Sorry, I was referring to Articles of the Constitution. Are there any weaknesses within the 7 Articles of the US Constitution that have garnered any widespread popular calls for amendment in the past several years (and not just from fringe movements) ?
Thanks TSBG. Very helpful.
Moved to Great Debates,
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Another point would be the provision for states’ rights. IIRC, the constitution does not explicitly say that state laws must abide by the constitution and its provisions - that’s a (not unreasonable) decision by the Supreme Court. (After all, what good is a right to free speech that the states can infringe at will? What’s federal-only free speech?)
Another one would be the extension of the interstate commerce clause to allow the federal government to stick its nose into things that were explicitly state jurisdiction. This was before states’ rights was a code word for violating civil rights. To be fair, the founding fathers did not anticipate a country where you could drive truckloads of goods across a dozen states in a single day, so they did not allow for such a more perfect union; and of course, a huge majority of states voting for an amendment to cede their rights wasn’t going to happen. Fortunately, the Supremes stepped in.
After all, there is nothing in the constitution that allows the federal government to regulate something like drug possession, except in the stretch that “if someone possesses it they could at some point carry it across a state line, therefore that restriction is necessary.” These were the sorts of details left to state law in the constitution, in the days when each state was a fairly isolated area and travel between them generally was not trivial.
(I think one of the underrated decisions of recent times was Roberts deciding in favour of Obama Care but simultaneously saying the interstate commerce clause did not apply, was too much of a reach - thus putting a limit on future interstate commerce claims.)
It explicitly says so:
“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.”
States could infringe upon free speech, etc., before the 14th Amendment, but that was because the Constitution didn’t say they couldn’t, not because they weren’t bound by it.
Thanks md2000. Picking up on your point " the constitution does not explicitly say that state laws must abide by the constitution and its provisions "…To what degree are states required to do so? Are you saying states could choose to segregate schools and get away with it? Outlaw abortion and get away with it? I assumed the constitutional laws were binding throughout the United States (and what about its territories?).
You may want to start by looking at applications for an Article V convention.