MK3 BLOG

Introduction

When people say, “the Supreme Court is the law of the land,” they’re echoing a slogan, It’s not a constitutional fact. 

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution is clear: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Nowhere does it say, “the opinions of nine unelected justices are binding scripture.”

Yet in practice, the Court has become just that: the final word, the oracle, the referee in all constitutional disputes. This tension between constitutional supremacy and judicial supremacy has shaped American history from Jefferson to Lincoln to today.

1. The Supremacy Clause as Written

• Article VI, Clause 2 (1787): Declares the Constitution itself, and laws made pursuant to it, as the highest law.
• No mention of the judiciary. No elevation of judicial opinions above the other branches.
• The founders designed a system of co-equal branches, each sworn to uphold the Constitution, not subordinate to one another.

2. Enter Judicial Review (Marbury v. Madison, 1803)

• Chief Justice John Marshall invented judicial review by declaring a law void if it conflicted with the Constitution.
• This was clever politics: the Court claimed a power not explicitly written down, but hard to deny in principle.
• From that point, the Court began carving out a role as the ultimate interpreter, even though nothing in the Constitution gave them “final say.”

3. Jefferson’s Rejection of Judicial Supremacy

• Jefferson feared judicial supremacy would turn into an “oligarchy.” He argued each branch—executive, legislative, and judicial—had the right to interpret the Constitution for itself.
• In an 1820 letter, Jefferson warned: “The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
• Jefferson’s strict constructionist view clashed with Marshall’s expansive reading of implied powers, especially in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

4. Jackson and Lincoln Against Judicial Absolutism

• Andrew Jackson ignored the Court in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), allegedly saying, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” The quote is apocryphal, but the point stands: Jackson didn’t treat the Court’s ruling as the last word.
• Abraham Lincoln, in his First Inaugural (1861), said Court rulings should bind the parties in a case but not “irrevocably fix” national policy. He cited Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), where the Court ruled African Americans could not be citizens. Lincoln rejected the decision’s broader authority, treating it as a judicial mistake, not the supreme law of the land.

5. The Rise of Judicial Supremacy in the 20th Century

• By the mid-20th century, especially post–World War II, judicial supremacy hardened into convention.
• Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was enforced as binding constitutional law, reshaping civil rights. Whatever one’s view of the outcome, it cemented the Court as final arbiter.
• Presidents and Congresses generally deferred, even when grumbling. The Court’s authority expanded by habit, not constitutional amendment.

6. The Problem of Unelected Power

• The Court today wields immense influence: abortion (Roe v. Wade, Dobbs v. Jackson), same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), gun rights (Heller and Bruen), campaign finance (Citizens United), and countless other policy-defining rulings.
• None of these outcomes came from legislation directly. They came from judicial interpretation, binding on the whole nation.
• This makes nine unelected judges—appointed for life—the effective authors of constitutional meaning. Critics see this as aristocracy in robes.

7. Modern Pushback and the “Departmentalism” Argument

• Departmentalism: The idea that each branch interprets the Constitution for itself. Rooted in Jefferson, carried by Lincoln.
• Example: States challenging federal power under “nullification” theories (though historically messy).
• Today, some scholars and politicians argue Congress and the President are not bound to treat Court rulings as universal precedent, only as binding in specific cases.

8. Current Context: Polarization and Court Legitimacy

• Trust in the Court is near historic lows. Decisions like Dobbs (2022) polarized the nation.
• On the right, people complain the Court has been too activist in social policy.
• On the left, critics say the Court is captured by special interests and out of step with popular will.
• Both sides are rediscovering Jefferson’s warning: an unchecked judiciary risks becoming the most dangerous branch.

9. What the Constitution Actually Demands

• The Constitution is supreme. The Court is not the Constitution.
• The Court’s opinions carry weight because the other branches allow them to. The judiciary has no army, no purse—only institutional habit and the compliance of others.
• If Congress or the President took Jefferson’s or Lincoln’s view, they could resist judicial supremacy while still respecting specific rulings in their limited scope.

10. Conclusion

The belief that the Supreme Court is the “supreme law of the land” is a historical and political invention, not a constitutional fact. The Constitution is supreme. The Court is an interpreter, not a sovereign. For most of American history, leaders from Jefferson to Lincoln resisted the idea that nine judges should dictate constitutional meaning for 330 million citizens.

Today, with polarization eroding faith in institutions, the time may be ripe to revisit that debate. Do we want constitutional supremacy, or judicial supremacy? If the Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land, then Congress, the President, and the people cannot outsource their duty to nine unelected officials.

1. The Real “Supreme Law of the Land”

• Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause): “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
• Notice what’s missing? It doesn’t say “Supreme Court opinions are the supreme law.” It’s the Constitution itself, plus laws passed consistent with it.

2. Where the Court Comes In

• Article III establishes the judiciary. It gives them jurisdiction, but nowhere does it say their interpretations are final and binding on everyone forever.
• Marbury v. Madison (1803) is where Chief Justice John Marshall grabbed judicial review out of thin air. He basically said, “We, the Court, decide what the Constitution means, and our word is final.” That was political sleight-of-hand, not a line in the Constitution.

3. Jefferson’s Warning

Jefferson hated the idea of judicial supremacy. He wrote that allowing judges to be the final arbiters of the Constitution would make them “a despotic oligarchy.” He argued each branch had the right and duty to interpret the Constitution for itself.

Lincoln echoed that in his First Inaugural: the people don’t live under the Court, we live under the Constitution. He respected the Court’s rulings in specific cases, but rejected the idea that a single Court decision should “irrevocably fix” policy for the whole nation.

4. Political vs. Legal Reality

• In theory: The Constitution is supreme. Court rulings are just opinions binding the parties in a specific case.
• In practice: Judicial review and stare decisis (precedent) give Supreme Court rulings enormous gravitational pull. Presidents and Congresses, for the most part, go along because otherwise the system cracks.

5. The Gap Between “Is” and “Ought”

• Is: The Court has made itself the referee. Through precedent, most of America treats its rulings as binding constitutional law.
• Ought: If you’re strict about the text, the Court is not supreme law. Its opinions should be respected but not worshiped. Each branch has equal duty to uphold the Constitution as written, not just as interpreted.

So the fight I’m sniffing at is the same one Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln all raised: do we live under a Constitution, or under nine lawyers in robes?

Every time someone loses a job over something they said online, the internet fills up with tears and hashtags. Boo-hoo, the mob didn’t like your tweet. But here’s the cold truth: that’s nothing compared to the people who’ve lost their lives for speaking their minds.

What the First Amendment Actually Says

The First Amendment is not complicated. It says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Key phrase: shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Abridging means reducing, cutting back, trimming down.

Freedom means just that—freedom. Not a privilege. Not a “civil liberty” that can be bartered away.

This isn’t up for debate. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Not Congress. Not the President. Not even the Supreme Court with its robed referees.

Hate Speech? That’s a Scam

There is no such thing as “hate speech” in U.S. law. That’s just speech someone happens to hate. And the Constitution doesn’t give a damn about your feelings. It protects your right to open your mouth whether you’re spouting poetry, profanity, or something deeply unpopular.

The Game of Implied Consent

Here’s where the real danger lives. Every time people cheer when someone is deplatformed, canceled, or punished for “bad” speech, they hand lawmakers the excuse to go further. That’s implied consent. You’ve told the government, “Go ahead, limit speech when it makes me uncomfortable.”

But ask yourself: who gave you the authority to bargain away my rights? Who told you that your fragile ego outranks the supreme law of the land? Because it sure as hell wasn’t me.

The Slippery Slope Isn’t Imaginary

Losing your job for saying something unpopular is already bad enough. But once governments normalize punishing speech, history shows us what comes next. It’s not jobs that disappear. It’s lives.

Final Word

You don’t have to like what people say. You don’t even have to listen. But the second you start deciding which words deserve freedom and which don’t, you’re not defending democracy—you’re digging its grave.

For context the following was my original rant:

“First Amendment to the US Constitution—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

{Abridging refers to the act of reducing or limiting certain rights or privileges, often in a legal context, such as abridging the right to free speech or other civil liberties. It involves making a restriction that diminishes the scope or extent of those rights.}

A few things that need clearing up, although the damage is already done thanks to you dimwits.

Congress, the Supreme Court nor the President have the Constitutional Authority to abridge the freedom of speech. Take care to notice it says freedom, meaning it isn’t a civil liberty, it isn’t and never has been up for debate and just because the Supreme Court says it’s so doesn’t make it so. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of this land, not the Supreme Court. 

There’s no such thing as “hate” speech only speech that you “hate”. It would not make a bit of difference if such a thing were in existence, the US Constitution states, in plan English, Congress shall make NO law ABRIDGING the FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 

You people that participate in this type of nonsense and openly brag about it are giving law makers and every other “but my feelings bro” reject the “implied consent” to take away from every American citizen’s Constitutional protected freedoms/rights. Now on that note, who the fuck gave you the authority or permission to speak on my behalf and give the government such “implied” consent? I didn’t and I never will.”

The following is ChatGPT5 remarks:

That image is basically a blunt reminder that whining about job loss for saying dumb stuff online pales in comparison to people who’ve literally died for exercising speech. The First Amendment isn’t a “customer service policy” for private companies; it’s a restriction on government power. Congress can’t pass laws limiting speech. That’s the deal. But your boss firing you for mouthing off? That’s not Uncle Sam gagging you—that’s capitalism serving you a pink slip with a side of irony.

Here’s where people get tangled:

• “Congress shall make no law…” means the government can’t criminalize you for speech, no matter how offensive, unless it crosses very narrow lines (incitement, true threats, etc.).
• Abridging = shrinking. The government doesn’t get to slice away chunks of that freedom just because it’s inconvenient.
• No such thing as “hate speech” in U.S. law. It’s just speech someone hates. The term is political, not constitutional.

Where the rant has teeth is in the “implied consent” bit. When people cheer on deplatforming, canceling, or laws that flirt with speech restrictions, they’re basically handing lawmakers moral permission to encroach. The Constitution says no abridging, but if the culture keeps demanding the government “do something” every time someone is offended, you eventually get legislators who try. And the Supreme Court—contrary to popular belief—isn’t the supreme law; the Constitution is. The Court interprets, but it doesn’t get to rewrite plain English.

So yeah, it’s not that you have a “right” to keep your job after saying something dumb on Twitter. You don’t. But the bigger picture—the one that should keep people awake at night—is that once you normalize punishing speech socially and economically, it’s a short hop to government punishment. And when governments punish speech, history shows it isn’t jobs that get lost. It’s lives.