Had a debate a while back with a friend regarding this question.

We were both taught that the US Constitution is the "Law of The Land".

We both knew better than that.


I said the law of the land is the SCOTUS.
My bottom-line: The US Constitution says what the SCOTUS says it says.

He said it was Congress.
His bottom-line: The US Congress determines who gets on the SCOTUS AND determines the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS.

He gave an example where the SCOTUS was about to rule on a case and the Congress stepped in and proclaimed that the SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to make any ruling in that case. SCOTUS was neutered by Congress. (I forgot the details of the case - supposedly a landmark event).


Anyone got any insights to this debate? What is the "Law of The Land"?

Anyone know of that incident where Congress "cancelled" a case that was about to be ruled by the SCOTUS?

That is a very delicate balance. But A Necessary one.  Congress was created in the constitution . I think Congress created SCOTUS.
And it can go back and forth over time.  But then you could say that the President is the most powerful person, for having almost no ordained powers in the constitution he has almost limitless implied powers.  That means that he, the president, could do almost anything. You have the executive decision. And besides being able to go to a camera at will and have millions tune in. He could go from the TV camera saying, "SEN. XXXXXXXX Is A DUMMY HEAD." to as POTUS/Commander in Chief of the Military, to ordering troops to invade the left wing of Capital hill.   So it all depends on what the situation is and although most of the rules are laid out, sometimes they are quite murky.  I personally believe that SCOTUS is SUPREME, because 1] I have more trust in their intellect and wisdom then I do %99.99 of congressmen as can be easily proved between the two-bit lawyers most legislators are and the 30 years of argument that most Justices have.
2]HELP ME SCOTUS YOUR MY ONLY HOPE, HELP ME SCOTUS YOUR MY ONLY HOPE. Or Something like that anyways.

I think my view was strengthened when I saw David Boies arguing for Al Gore in the garbage that followed the election and getting Disembowled by Rheinquist. It was a beautiful sight as Boies had to pick his guts up off the floor and push them back inside himself and walk back to his table.  I cheared.

On the otherhand if Congress ever tried to end SCOTUS there would be revolution.  THere is only one man who ever tried it and he even in the most desperate of times failed (the great Depression).  SCOTUS is where liberty takes her last stand. If SCOTUS fails or is suspended then Liberty is over.  So perhaps since Congress didn't want to think just merely politic and they gave the Job of thinking to SCOTUS was and is a very WISE choice. And one that has kept us out of harms way.

Ben

Article III, sec. 2, p.2: "...the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Marburry v. Madison. [THEE DIFINITIVE CASE!] - The gist is this; the Sup. Crt. has judicial review of the other two branches of government arising in "cases and controversies."

The separation of powers is the key to the three branches. Congress cannot willy nilly devoid the Sup. Crt. of power. Hence; lifetime appointment of justices.

The President does not have absolute immunity - look to U.S. v. Nixon and Jones (IE Paula,) v. Clinton - where he was not protected by the Sup. Crt. and stood indictment just as Nixon did during Watergate.

To answer "The Macallan's" question, no one branch has anymore power over the other - the doctrine of "Checks and Balances." God the forefathers were brilliant don't ya think!

During the Clinton years, I kept thinking we were geting closer and closer to a military takeover to restore Constitutional government.

The law of the land is the Constitution, and all laws made IN PURSUANCE THEREOF. Not what the SCOTUS says. It is what the CONSTITUTION says.

BTW, the SCOTUS was created by the Constitution.

Congress CAN nullify a SC ruling, but only if it is the SC makes what is called a statutory construction, meaning it interpretes a statute or law. If Congress disagrees with the SC, it can pass a law specifying what the law actually says.
Congress can also nullify a SC ruling if it deals with Constitutional issues, but only by passing an amendment, and getting the states to pass it as well. That happened 4 times (Amendments 11, 14, 16, and 26).
The SC can also overturn itself in a later ruling, regardless of whether the ruling is statutory or constitutional construction.

I agree with BeerSlayer.  The "Law of the Land" is really the ability of the people to stand up for what is right.

What it 51% of the voters in the country voted a liberal President and liberal Congress?  They in turn appointed liberal Supreme Court Justices.  Then the whole liberal mess started to take away our real freedoms?  No guns, no free speech, great transfer of wealth to minorities, abolishment of US sovereignty in place of Unitied Nations crap.  The list could go on and on.  The only remedity would be to invoke the real Law of the Land which would be what the founding fathers envisioned with the 2nd Amendment.

Oh for Christ's sake, that's really sad, Flash.  Pay attention - the problem isn't [i]liberals[/i], it's [i]politicians[/i].  Both sides of the aisle.  Who's introducing and passing laws infringing on our rights now?  The Patriot Act was Republican.  The recent Michigan law stripping its citizens 4th Amendment rights was introduced by Republicans - and passed almost unanimously by [i]both parties[/i].  The "conservatives" are just as interested in grabbing power as the "liberals" are - only the [i]reasoning[/i] behind it is different.  

You sit there and watch the liberals like a hawk.  The conservatives will strip your rights while you're so occupied.  It'll just take them a bit longer.

Is this a reference to FDR?

What he threatened to do was not abolish the SCOTUS, but dilute the authority of the sitting judges.  FDR was prepared to appoint as many judges as he needed to get a majority on his side.

There is no Constitutional limit on the number of justices in the SCOTUS.

He DID manage to pack the court with "his side".

Actually, he didnt. He wanted congress to increase the number of justices so he could appoint judges that wouldnt find his legistation unconstitutional. the public didnt look well on it, but before anything could be done, one of the justices changed his position, and the court started deciding in favor of the new deal plans. It's called "the switch in time that saved nine." FDR then didnt have to "pack" the court

Really?

Hugo L. Black, 1937
Stanley F. Reed, 1938
Felix Frankfurter, 1939
William O. Douglas, 1939
Frank Murphy, 1940
James F. Byrnes, 1941
Robert H. Jackson, 1941
Wiley B. Rutledge, 1943

There's only 9 Supreme Court Justices.  This isn't "packing?"

I'm sorry, but I thought you were refering to what is universally known as FDR's "Court Packing Scheme."
[url]http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/depression/terms/event_C.17.html[/url]

KBaker is absolutely right, there is a difference of degree not kind!

That's OK.  It took him a while to do it, but he did it in the end anyway.  It's one of the really good reasons behind the 22nd Amendment.  

the_macallan, you may want to read
Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506 (1869).
   
i think its 74 U.S. 506

try findlaw.com if you dont have access to the us reports, they have a number of Supreme Court cases