G&T Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 12:44 PM) Just so its clear, my arguments were not based on actual US precedent. They were based on a common sense approach that is not used in the court system. Thus when I argue that: Illinois constitution differs from US constitution. That when the US accepted Illinois as a state they implicitly ratified the Illinois Constitution. Thus it would require that the US Supreme Court state that the Illinois Constitution is unconstitutional under federal law. Im not arguing that the Federal law doesnt trump State law, im arguing that the Supreme Court did not even address the idea that the Illinois constitution differs from the US constitution and whether that difference is constitutional. They took the easy way out and made bad law in the process. Its not often that a state constitution varies greatly from the Federal Bill of Rights, but it can and does happen. In those cases the State should have the final say on their constitution, until the Fed says the state constitution is unconstitutional. Once again im not arguing this using precedent or case law, this is just my personal opinion based on common sense. The Illinois Constitution cannot permit itself to do something that the state would not otherwise be allowed to do. The police powers do not permit a state to place an outright ban on a constitutional right. The police permit the state to place restrictions on that right and that has not been infringed. I just don't understand how you think this is a common sense approach. Any state would be able to do whatever they wanted simply by making an amendment to thier constitution. Edited July 1, 2010 by G&T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 No because the Supreme Court of the US could say that the Constitution of that state was unconstitutional and therefore make them amend it. In this instance the US Supreme Court remained SILENT on the Illinois Constitution. How does that make any sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 04:10 PM) No because the Supreme Court of the US could say that the Constitution of that state was unconstitutional and therefore make them amend it. In this instance the US Supreme Court remained SILENT on the Illinois Constitution. How does that make any sense? Because the language of the IL Constitution is not unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts