19th-century jurists sometimes identified the law of the land with the common law, to the exclusion of other laws. [37] However, by allowing an alternative to grand jury review in Hurtado, the Court allowed for procedural reform that departed from the common law. The court said the law of the land in each state should respect the “fundamental principles of liberty and justice.” [37] This Constitution and the laws of the United States promulgated thereunder; and all treaties concluded or to be concluded under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges of each State shall be bound by it, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Constitution or the laws of any State. This is sometimes referred to as the “land law clause”. The Magna Carta was originally written in Latin, and the Latin term is lex terrae or legem terrae accusatively. when the term is used as an object in a sentence). [1] In Federalist No. 33, Alexander Hamilton writes about the supremacy clause that federal laws must, by definition, take precedence. If laws do not operate from this position, then they are worthless, declaring that “a law in the proper sense of the word includes supremacy. It is a rule to which those to whom it is prescribed are bound. This stems from all political associations. When individuals enter a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their behavior.
When a number of political societies become part of a larger political society, the laws which it may enact by virtue of the powers conferred on it by its constitution must necessarily prevail over those societies and the individuals who compose them. Under the Supremacy Clause, the “supreme law of the land” also includes federal laws enacted by Congress. Within the limits of the powers that Congress receives from other parts of the Constitution, Congress may set rules of decision that U.S. courts must apply, even if state law purports to provide conflicting rules. Congress also has at least the power to completely remove or restrict certain matters of state law that state law may validly say about it. As long as directives issued by Congress are actually authorized by the Constitution, they take precedence over both ordinary laws and each state`s Constitution. (During the ratification phase, anti-federalists objected to federal laws and treaties taking precedence over certain aspects of each state`s Constitution and Bill of Rights. But while this feature of the precedence clause has been controversial, it is clear.) In 1855, the United States Supreme Court stated: “The words `due process` should undoubtedly have the same meaning as the words `according to the law of the land` in the Magna Carta.” [35] Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Lemuel Shaw wrote in 1857: “Lord Coke himself explains his own meaning by saying that `the law of the land,` as expressed in the Magna Carta, was due process, that is, by the impeachment or presentation of good and legitimate men. [36] In 1884, however, the U.S.
Supreme Court called this a misunderstanding, stating that Coca-Cola never meant that the grand jury indictment “is essential to the idea of due process in the prosecution and punishment of crimes, but was only mentioned as an example and illustration of due process as it actually existed in cases. in which it was commonly used.” [29] The Court added:[29] The Constitution also appeals to the adherents of any vision. The preamble talks about “We the people of the United States.” The U is capitalized, and it looks like a single national corporation — until you dig deeper and learn that the original draft listed the thirteen states (“We, the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations.”) with the list ultimately for style and to avoid embarrassment when some states rejected the Constitution (as Rhode Island originally did). Federalists, on the other hand, may point out that the Constitution still treats the term “United States” as a plural noun. In general, “the supreme law of the land” refers to the supreme power in the law of a nation. English jurists who have written about legem terrae in relation to Magna Carta have explained that this term includes all laws currently in force in a jurisdiction. For example, Edward Coke wrote in 1606 in a commentary on the Magna Carta: “No man shall be taken or imprisoned except per legem terrae, that is, by the common law, law or custom of England.” [24] [25] In this context, “custom” refers only to local customs, since general English custom was considered part of the common law. [26] [27] [B]ill of attainder, ex post facto laws, laws explaining the forfeiture of estates, and other arbitrary legislative acts so common in English history have never been considered incompatible with the law of the land; for, notwithstanding what Lord COKE was credited with in Bonham, 8 Reporters, 115, 118a, the omnipotence of Parliament over the common law was absolute, even against the common law and reason. One of the main objectives of the Constitution drafted by the Convention was to create a Government with sufficient powers to act at the national level, but without so much power that fundamental rights would be threatened. One way to do this was to divide the power of government into three branches, and then introduce control mechanisms for those powers to ensure that no branch of government gained supremacy. This concern stemmed largely from the delegates` experience with the King of England and his powerful parliament. The competences of each branch are defined in the Constitution, the competences not conferred on them being reserved to the States.
Hello love the true value of our Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land. God bless us all There is something to be said about a document that has been valid for more than two hundred years.