Can States Ever Contradict The Constitution?

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any state law that contradicts it is invalid. This is according to the Supremacy Clause, which gives federal laws priority over state laws. The Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law and can overrule state court decisions. While the federal government has the power to enforce the doctrine of pre-emption, it does not always exercise its full power. For example, in states like Nevada, certain counties have legal brothels, which contradicts federal law, but the federal government has not intervened. However, in California, where medical marijuana is legal, the federal government has taken a different approach and raided dispensaries. These contradictions between state and federal laws present complex legal situations that are interpreted and resolved by the Supreme Court.

The Supremacy Clause

The Supreme Court has relied on the Supremacy Clause to establish the priority of federal law and has applied it in ways that reinforce the division of federal and state powers. The Court has recognised several types of preemption, where federal law can preempt state law either expressly or impliedly. Express preemption occurs when federal law contains explicit language stating its supremacy over state law. Implied preemption occurs when the intent to preempt state law is implicit in the structure and purpose of the federal law.

Federal law takes priority

The Supremacy Clause, which is part of Article VI of the US Constitution, states that federal law takes priority over state law in the event of a contradiction. This clause establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under the authority of the United States are the "supreme Law of the Land." It also specifies that judges in every state are bound by the Constitution and federal laws, regardless of any conflicting state laws. In other words, if there is a conflict between state and federal law, judges should follow the federal law and prioritize it over the state law.

The Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the power to enforce the doctrine of pre-emption, which means that federal law supersedes state law when they clash. However, the federal government does not always exercise this power in every case. For example, in states like Nevada, certain counties have legalized prostitution, which contradicts federal law. Yet, the federal government has not enforced the doctrine of pre-emption in these cases, as prostitution may not be seen as a threat to national security or international relations.

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing the Supremacy Clause. It has the final say in matters involving federal law and can overrule decisions by state courts. For instance, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court held that a tax levied by Maryland on a federally incorporated bank was unconstitutional because it violated the Supremacy Clause. The Court ruled that if a state had the power to tax a federal institution, it would effectively have the power to destroy it, which would be inconsistent with the intent of Congress and the Supremacy Clause.

The Supremacy Clause also applies to treaties made under the authority of the United States, giving them equal status as "supreme law of the land" with federal statutes. This means that international agreements ratified by a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate are considered part of US law and can legislate in areas that would otherwise fall under state authority. However, as seen in the 2008 case of Medellín v. Texas, treaties are not binding domestic law unless implemented by an act of Congress or explicitly "self-executing."

In conclusion, the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal law takes priority over state law in the event of a contradiction. This clause upholds the principle that the Constitution and federal laws made pursuant to it are the supreme Law of the Land, and it grants the federal government the authority to enforce this principle through the doctrine of pre-emption. While the federal government may choose not to intervene in certain cases, the Supreme Court plays a pivotal role in interpreting and upholding the Supremacy Clause, ensuring that federal law prevails over conflicting state laws.

State law contradictions

In the United States, the Constitution and federal laws take precedence over state laws. This principle, known as the Supremacy Clause, is outlined in Article VI of the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal laws made under the authority of the United States and treaties ratified by the Senate are the "supreme Law of the Land," taking precedence over any conflicting state laws.

The Supremacy Clause grants the federal government the power to override state laws and ensures that the Constitution and federal laws are upheld as the highest legal authority in the country. This clause has been invoked in various instances where state laws have contradicted federal laws or the Constitution. For example, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court ruled that a tax levied by Maryland on the federally incorporated Bank of the United States was unconstitutional, as it violated the Supremacy Clause by giving states power over a federal institution.

State laws that contradict the Constitution or federal laws can be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. For instance, a Maryland statute requiring importers to obtain a license to resell imported articles in their original packaging was found to conflict with the federal power to regulate foreign commerce and the constitutional prohibition on states levying import duties. Similarly, a Missouri act that issued certificates payable in taxes, debts, or salaries to public officers violated the constitutional ban on states emitting "bills of credit."

In some cases, states have passed laws that contradict federal laws without the federal government intervening. For example, in certain counties in Nevada, prostitution has been legalized, which goes against federal law. However, the federal government has not enforced the doctrine of pre-emption in these cases, possibly because it does not affect national security or international relations. Similarly, the legalization of medical marijuana in California contradicts federal law, but the federal government has not raided any dispensaries in the state.

Supreme Court's final say

The Supremacy Clause, which is part of Article VI of the US Constitution, gives federal law priority over state law in cases where there is a contradiction between the two. This means that federal law is the "supreme law of the land", and that "judges in every state shall be bound" by it.

The Supremacy Clause states that:

> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

In practice, this means that the federal government can enforce the doctrine of pre-emption, but it doesn't always exercise its full power in every case. For example, in Nevada, certain counties have legalised prostitution, which violates federal law, but the federal government has not intervened.

The Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law and can overrule decisions by state courts. For example, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court reviewed a tax levied by Maryland on the federally incorporated Bank of the United States. The Court found that if a state had the power to tax a federally incorporated institution, then the state effectively had the power to destroy the federal institution, which would be inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause. The Court therefore held that Maryland's tax on the bank was unconstitutional.

In another case, Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, the Supreme Court ruled that an ordinance passed by the City of Farmers Branch conflicted with pre-existing federal law and affirmed the lower court's decision.

State and federal contradictions

The United States Constitution and federal laws take precedence over state laws, as outlined in the Supremacy Clause (Article VI of the Constitution). This clause establishes that federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land" and that judges in every state are bound by it, even if state laws contradict it.

The Supremacy Clause contains the doctrine of pre-emption, which gives the federal government the power to override state laws. However, the federal government does not always exercise this power when state and federal laws clash. For example, in states like Nevada, certain counties have legalised prostitution, which contradicts federal law. Yet, the federal government has not enforced the doctrine of pre-emption in these cases.

Similarly, the federal government has taken a hands-off approach to states like California, where medical marijuana is legal, despite contradicting federal law. In other instances, the Supreme Court has ruled that state laws are unconstitutional due to conflicting federal laws or the interpretation of the Constitution. For example, in McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court found that Maryland's tax on a federally incorporated bank was unconstitutional as it violated the Supremacy Clause.

State laws that contradict the Constitution or federal laws can be held invalid or preempted by the Supreme Court. This is evident in cases like Brown v. Maryland, where a Maryland statute requiring importers to obtain a license to resell imported articles conflicted with the federal power to regulate foreign commerce and was held unconstitutional. Similarly, a Missouri act that issued certificates payable in taxes or debts violated the constitutional prohibition against states emitting "bills of credit".

In conclusion, while states can pass laws that contradict the Constitution or federal laws, the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal law takes precedence. The federal government may choose not to intervene in certain cases, but the Supreme Court can still rule on the constitutionality of state laws, prioritising federal law and the interpretation of the Constitution.

Frequently asked questions