Expert: Michael Troy - 5/8/2004

Question
Hello,
In a States Executive Judicial declaration of court rules in  evidentuary hearings,it states within the fact finding
process that Judicial Rules need not conform to common law or state rules of evidence and other technical rules of procedure.
As question I provide in the subject line of this inquiry,sometimes predominadently referred to as law of the land,can it be established that
these rights are that of precedent,prominently cited as irrevocable in singular application,constant and only subject to change or removal by a majority of the peoples in ratification or abolishment?Certainly rights of precedent excede that of doctrine for it is the basis of legislative process,that allows writ to be considered let alone be founded as law by majority.Are there any references stating the titlement in the question line that show ruling or definition that Constitutional powers are that of supremecy?  

Answer
Hi Darrel,

I read through your question several times but am still not sure I understand what you are asking.  In all states, the Constitution is the supreme law for the state.  If a law or precedent is contrary to the constitution, it is not legitimate and unenforceable in the Courts.  But where a Constitution does not provide much guidance, laws or other regulations may be created to create various restricitons or liberties.  

Courts are responsible for interpreting the Constitution and laws.  Frequently, a court may twist the meaning of something to reach a specific result, but they are the final say on interpretation.  Of course, the people are ultimately sovereign and may amend the Constitution any way they like.

On top of all that is Federal laws, which are superior to state laws and State Constitutions as well as State judicial decisions.  If any state rule is contrary to any federal law or other provision, it is illegitimate and becomes unenforceable as well.

I hope this helps!
- Mike