The Law Vs Constitution: Which Rules?

The question of whether a law can override the constitution is a complex one, and the answer may vary depending on the specific legal and political context. In the United States, the Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution and federal laws made under its authority are the supreme law of the land, taking precedence over state laws. This means that a federal statute that conflicts with a state law will generally supersede it. However, the interpretation and application of the Supremacy Clause have been subject to debate and disagreement, with different judicial opinions on what constitutes a conflict between federal and state laws. While the Supreme Court has the final say in matters of constitutional interpretation, the exact scope of federal power and the limits on states' rights remain contested.

Treaties and the Constitution

Treaties occupy a unique place in the US constitutional system. The US Constitution declares a treaty to be the "law of the land", and it is, therefore, to be regarded as equivalent to an act of the legislature. This means that treaties are generally as binding as federal law.

The US Constitution vests the power to make treaties in the national government, specifically in the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. The authority to negotiate treaties has been assigned to the President alone as part of a general authority to control diplomatic communications.

The US Supreme Court has consistently held that Congress can abrogate a treaty by legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. In Missouri v. Holland (1920), the Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause allows the federal government to make treaties that supersede state law, even if such treaties might abrogate states' rights. However, this broad interpretation was later circumscribed in Reid v. Covert (1957), when the Supreme Court held that treaties and the laws made pursuant to them must comply with the Constitution. The enforceability of treaties was further limited in Medellín v. Texas (2008), which held that a treaty is not binding domestic law unless implemented by an act of Congress or is explicitly "self-executing".

The US Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties are considered the "supreme law of the land" per the Supremacy Clause, with no superior efficacy ... given to either over the other. The Supremacy Clause makes federal law superior to state law, and the US Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law, including constitutional interpretation, and can overrule decisions by state courts.

The Supremacy Clause

The Supreme Court has relied on the Supremacy Clause to establish a robust role for the federal government in managing the nation's affairs. The Court has interpreted the Supremacy Clause to mean that federal law can preempt state law either expressly or impliedly. Express preemption occurs when federal law contains explicit language stating that it preempts state law. Implied preemption occurs when the intent to preempt state law is implicit in the structure and purpose of the federal law.

State nullification

The concept of nullification of federal law by the states was not discussed at the Constitutional Convention. The records of the Convention support the idea that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional lies in the federal courts. The courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have repeatedly rejected the theory of nullification. The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law. The Supremacy Clause declares that federal statutes are "the supreme Law of the Land" and that "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

There have been three prominent attempts by states at nullification in American history. Firstly, Kentucky's attempt to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798; secondly, South Carolina's attempt to nullify two federal tariff laws in 1832; and thirdly, Arkansas's attempt to nullify Brown v. Board of Education (1954) in 1957. In each instance, nullification's legitimacy as a constitutional theory was rejected. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts. In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification to prevent the integration of their schools, but these attempts failed when the Supreme Court rejected nullification.

Federal preemption

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution establishes federal preemption, which refers to the idea that a higher authority of law will override the law of a lower authority when the two conflict. In the case of federal preemption, federal law supersedes state law. The Supremacy Clause declares that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under the authority of the United States are the "supreme Law of the Land." This means that federal statutes take precedence over state laws and state constitutions.

The US Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution and federal law, and its decisions are final in matters involving federal law. The Court has consistently held that federal law prevails over conflicting state law, and it has the authority to reverse the decisions of state supreme courts. This principle of federal supremacy is well-settled, and it applies regardless of whether the conflicting laws come from legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, or constitutions.

There are three main types of preemption: express preemption, conflict preemption, and implied preemption. Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly states Congress's intention to preempt state law. Conflict preemption arises when compliance with both federal and state law is impossible, or when state law hinders federal objectives. Implied preemption, which is more controversial and has been outlawed by some states, occurs when a local ordinance permits or prohibits an act that is contrary to state legislation.

Judicial interpretation

The Supremacy Clause, a part of the Constitution, establishes federal law as superior to state law. This clause gives the federal government the power to make treaties and laws that supersede state laws, even if they impinge on states' rights. However, treaties and laws made under them must comply with the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the final say in interpreting the Constitution and federal law and can overrule state court decisions.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that Congress cannot pass laws contrary to the Constitution and that it is the role of the judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits. This interpretation can result in declaring a law unconstitutional if it exceeds the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. For example, in McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that a state tax on a federally incorporated bank was unconstitutional as it violated the Supremacy Clause by giving states power over federal institutions.

The interpretation of the Supremacy Clause and the extent of federal preemption over state law can be complex and subject to different judicial opinions. For instance, while the basic principle of federal preemption is well-settled, there can be disagreements about what constitutes a conflict between federal and state laws. The Supreme Court has also recognised implied field preemption, where federal laws dominate a field that a state seeks to regulate, even without an express provision for preemption in a statute.

In conclusion, judicial interpretation is crucial in determining whether a law can override the Constitution. The Supreme Court, guided by the Supremacy Clause and its interpretation, plays a pivotal role in ensuring that federal law, including Congressional acts and treaties, does not supersede the Constitution. This interpretation helps maintain the balance of power between the federal government and the states and protects the core values and rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Frequently asked questions