States' Rights: National Law And State Sovereignty

The relationship between state and federal laws is a complex one, particularly in federal systems like the United States, where states and the federal government share sovereignty. While states have their own laws and regulations, they are still subject to the Constitution, which sets the framework for federal authority. The concept of legal supremacy is a fundamental principle, asserting that the laws of the state or the constitution are the supreme authority within a country's legal framework. This principle is crucial in understanding the interplay between state and federal laws and the extent to which states can challenge or deny national laws.

State sovereignty

The concept of state sovereignty is one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international law. It is closely related to the difficult concepts of state, government, independence, and democracy. The term 'sovereignty' is derived from the Latin 'superanus' and was originally understood to mean the equivalent of supreme power.

In the context of international law, there are currently more than 200 sovereign states, most of which are represented in the United Nations. These states exist in a system of international relations, where each state takes into account the policies of other states and makes its own calculations. The foundation for international law, diplomacy between officially recognized sovereign states, and their organizations and formal regimes have been established. Westphalian sovereignty, named after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on territoriality and the absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures. It made a clear separation between religion and state, recognizing the right of princes to determine the religious affiliation of their kingdoms.

In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state, manifesting as its complete self-sufficiency within a certain territory. This means that a state has supremacy in domestic policy and independence in foreign policy. The United Nations Charter, the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organizations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based on their existence as persons under international law. The right of nations to determine their political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognized.

In the context of 'can a state deny a national law', the answer is nuanced. While states have their own laws and regulations, they are still subject to the Constitution, which sets the framework for federal authority. The principle of legal supremacy empowers states to play a significant role in interpreting and applying federal laws. When a federal law conflicts with a state's constitution or violates constitutional principles, states have the authority to challenge and deny its application. However, this does not mean that states can simply ignore federal laws. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal laws take precedence over state laws when there is a conflict, ensuring that the federal government's authority is not undermined by state actions.

Federal law supremacy

The concept of legal supremacy is a fundamental principle in many legal systems, particularly those influenced by common law tradition. It asserts that the laws of the state or the constitution are the supreme authority within a country's legal framework. This principle is crucial for understanding the relationship between state and federal laws and the extent to which states can challenge or deny national laws.

In the United States, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal laws take precedence over state laws in cases of conflict. This clause, ratified in 1788, is a significant structural provision that ensures the federal government's authority is not undermined by state actions. It provides the legal status of the Constitution, federal laws, treaties, and Congress's power to establish rules that courts must apply, even if they conflict with state laws. The Supremacy Clause also specifies that the Constitution binds the judges in every state, regardless of contrary state laws.

The Supreme Court has historically applied the Supremacy Clause to uphold federal supremacy and manage the nation's affairs. While there have been periods of dual federalism, where federal and state authorities were largely separate, the Court has also expanded areas of concurrent authority. The Court's role in interpreting the Constitution and federal laws is essential in maintaining the balance of power between states' rights and federal authority.

The dynamic relationship between state and federal laws allows states to interpret and apply federal laws within their jurisdictions. States can challenge federal laws that conflict with their constitutions or principles, protecting citizens' rights and ensuring alignment with fundamental values. Judicial review is a cornerstone of this process, allowing courts to evaluate the constitutionality of laws and check the power of the legislative branch. This ensures that laws uphold the nation's founding principles and citizens' rights.

State preemption

In the United States, state preemption is the invalidation of some action by, or the wresting of power from, a portion of the state government. This is often a municipality or other part of the state government that only exercises power within a specific geographical area, such as a county. State preemption is often used when there is a political disagreement between the state legislature and municipal governments.

Preemption is a legal doctrine that allows higher levels of government to restrict or prevent a lower-level government from self-regulating. While it is often thought of in the context of federal preemption of state regulation, preemption is increasingly used by states to limit cities, counties, and other lower-level municipalities from legislating across a broad array of issues. The extent of a state's ability to preempt local government depends on various factors, such as whether the state grants local governments the power to govern, or whether the state follows Dillon's Rule, which only permits local governments to legislate where a state has expressly allowed.

Some preemption laws contain punishments for enforcing preempted laws, such as withholding state funds from the municipality or making officials open to lawsuits. In many states, municipalities only have the powers specifically granted to them by state legislatures. Most states have some form of home rule, which expands municipal power. However, only California and Ohio protect municipalities from preemption.

In recent years, preemption has been increasingly abused, leveraged to prohibit local governments from advancing policies meant to address and advance equity, public health, worker protections, and climate change, among other issues. Preemption has been used to uphold racist and inequitable structures, pushed by majority-white and GOP-controlled legislatures. For example, in 2019, anti-sanctuary cities and anti-immigrant bills were the most commonly introduced preemption bills. Preemption has also been used to limit localities' ability to set stronger labor standards and protections, including those related to minimum wage, paid sick time, and fair scheduling.

Legal restraint

The concept of legal restraint is essential to understanding the dynamic relationship between state and federal laws. While states possess their own legal systems and powers, they are still subject to the Constitution, which sets the framework for federal authority. This is where the principle of legal supremacy comes into play, asserting that the laws of the state or the constitution hold the highest authority within a country's legal framework.

In the United States, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves powers for the states or the people that are not delegated to the federal government. However, this does not imply that states can disregard federal laws. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the primacy of federal laws over state laws in cases of conflict, thereby ensuring that state actions do not undermine the federal government's authority.

When a federal law is enacted, states have the discretion to determine its applicability and enforceability within their borders. States have the authority to interpret and apply federal laws within their jurisdictions, as they are considered closer to the people and can better understand their citizens' specific needs. This discretionary power allows states to protect their citizens' rights and ensure that federal laws align with the fundamental values enshrined in their constitutions.

However, this power is not absolute. The judiciary plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance of power between states and the federal government. Through judicial review, courts can evaluate the constitutionality of both state and federal laws, ensuring they conform to the nation's founding principles and citizens' rights. If a state enacts a law that contradicts a federal regulation, the federal judiciary can intervene, declaring the state law unconstitutional and upholding the supremacy of federal law.

In summary, legal restraint serves as a mechanism to check the power of both state and federal governments, ensuring that laws at all levels adhere to constitutional principles and protect the rights of citizens.

Judicial review

The concept of judicial review is a cornerstone of the American legal system. It allows federal courts to evaluate the constitutionality of both state and federal laws. This process is a critical check on the power of the legislative branch, ensuring that laws are in line with the nation's founding principles and citizens' rights. While the US Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, its authority has been inferred from its structure, provisions, and history.

The relationship between state and federal laws can be complex, especially when a state's interests conflict with a federal law. In such cases, the principle of legal supremacy empowers states to interpret and apply federal laws within their jurisdictions. This principle is derived from the idea that state governments are closer to the people and can better understand their needs and concerns. However, states are still subject to the Constitution, which sets the framework for federal authority. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people, but this does not mean states can ignore federal laws. The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal laws take precedence in conflicts with state laws.

Some argue that judicial review exclusively by federal courts is unconstitutional. The first argument is that the power of judicial review is not explicitly delegated to federal courts in the Constitution. The second argument is that allowing only federal courts to conduct judicial review of federal law enables the national government to interpret its own restrictions without meaningful input from the states.

Frequently asked questions