Does Justice Jackson imply that the Bill of Right is superior to the other provisions of the Consittution?

Question

this is about the Barnette Case. Defend your position.

please help me. this is homework... i have to admit. but i really don't understand. :/

Answer 1

If the question precludes that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are seoarate documents....This is a strange question and basically apples and oranges...

The Bill of Rights is  a list of certain individual liberties that the national government, not the states, can not infringe upon....one of course being the wall of separation in regards to religion...the Constitution does not list any "liberties" other than writ of habeas corpus, bill of attainder, and ex post facto none of which deal with religion...Jackson wrote for the majority and basically stated that you can't make everybody think the same about politics and religion....one can even refrernce here Madison's thesis in Federalist #10

Answer 2

No. I don't think he implied that the Bill of Rights is any more authoritative than other parts of the Constitution. All parts of the Constitution are law. The Bill of Rights is law but no more so than the requirement that Presidents be limited to a four-year term, or the Ex Post Facto clauses, or the Qualification Clauses of Article 1. He merely said that the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are legal principles to be applied by courts. Nothing in the way he said that implies that other provisions of the Constitution are NOT legal principles to be applied by courts.