Are judges in every state bound by unconstitutional federal laws as the supreme law of the land, as well as constitutional ones?
Does this clause in Article VI say they are?
Looks it.
It says they are bound by the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties, anything in the state laws or constitutions notwithstanding.
Article II Section 3 says the president is to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
Not just the constitutional ones and not just the ones he thinks are constitutional.
Much less just those he thinks prudent or just.
Nothing in the Constitution says the Supremes or anyone else can nullify a law, whether federal or state, or anything else that is, or that they think is, unconstitutional.
A president can veto a bill he thinks unconstitutional, and the Congress can override the veto if they think best.
During the convention in Philadelphia the same veto power, but only for unconstitutionality, was considered and grew into the more general power in Article I, Section 7.
That was the only manner in which the convention expressly thought to deal with the possibility.
And that is all.
So much for Judicial Review, and so much for Nullificationism.
No comments:
Post a Comment