http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/04/minnesota-teague-retroactivity-rule-binds-states/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:42:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/04/minnesota-teague-retroactivity-rule-binds-states/#comment-11124 Jacob Berlove Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:01:25 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/minnesota-teague-retroactivity-rule-binds-states/#comment-11124 I have a much more radical position than the one taken by the public defender here. In my view, nothing in the constitution bars a state supreme court from subjecting a state to a stricter interpetation of federal law than that demanded by the supreme court. The supremacy clause only insures that states don't act against the union by refusing to obey decisions that injoin conduct as offensive thereof. But the United States suffers no harm by a state court insisting on an interpetation that would further protect the union. Perhaps various provisions in State constitutions should be interpeted to protect the state by banning state court interpetations of federal law broader than that of the federal courts as encroachments against the state. But I find it mind-boggling a suggestion that the federal constitution, whose functions are to 1)define the powers of the federal government and its various branches and 2) guarantee to the states that the <i>federal government</i> will encroach no further on their sovergnity beyond the powers allocated to the federal government- would also 3) guarantee the several states protection from themselves- a guarentee that I find absent from the historical record, and that finds no basis when place in context of the concerns of ratification era citizens. I have a much more radical position than the one taken by the public defender here. In my view, nothing in the constitution bars a state supreme court from subjecting a state to a stricter interpetation of federal law than that demanded by the supreme court. The supremacy clause only insures that states don’t act against the union by refusing to obey decisions that injoin conduct as offensive thereof. But the United States suffers no harm by a state court insisting on an interpetation that would further protect the union. Perhaps various provisions in State constitutions should be interpeted to protect the state by banning state court interpetations of federal law broader than that of the federal courts as encroachments against the state. But I find it mind-boggling a suggestion that the federal constitution, whose functions are to 1)define the powers of the federal government and its various branches and 2) guarantee to the states that the federal government will encroach no further on their sovergnity beyond the powers allocated to the federal government- would also 3) guarantee the several states protection from themselves- a guarentee that I find absent from the historical record, and that finds no basis when place in context of the concerns of ratification era citizens.

]]>