How Federal Government Impacts State Laws And Regulations

The federal government cannot directly modify state law. However, it can pass laws that inspire states to change their laws. For example, in 1996, California voters created an exception to their state marijuana possession law, and other states followed suit. Despite this, the federal government has not changed its laws on marijuana possession, and it is still considered illegal. This is an example of how state laws can be at odds with federal laws, and how states can choose to prioritize one set of laws over another.

Congress cannot rewrite state laws

In the United States, Congress is the law-making branch of the federal government. However, it is limited to rewriting acts previously enacted by Congress itself. This means that Congress cannot rewrite state laws or federal regulations written by the executive branch. The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly limited Congress's authority to directly regulate the operations of state governments through the anti-commandeering doctrine. This doctrine was articulated in cases such as New York v. United States (1992), where the Court held that the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 unconstitutionally forced states to enact legislation as directed by the federal government.

While Congress cannot directly rewrite state laws, it can pass laws that indirectly influence state legislation. For example, Congress might pass a law that strengthens conditions on federal funding, which could prompt a state to modify its laws regarding college funding or highway operation. This dynamic between state and federal power is a delicate balance that has been the subject of constitutional debate and judicial interpretation.

The legislative process in the United States is designed to be open and full of discussion, allowing for amendments to be made to a bill before it becomes law. This process involves the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President, each with specific roles and powers. The House of Representatives, composed of 435 members elected every two years, is responsible for initiating tax and revenue-related legislation. The Senate, on the other hand, is composed of 100 members, two from each state, and it handles legislation related to presidential nominations and treaties.

The President also plays a crucial role in the legislative process. While the President cannot create laws independently, they have the power to veto bills passed by Congress. In most cases, Congress can override a presidential veto with a vote. However, if the President does not sign a bill and Congress is no longer in session, the bill is vetoed by default, known as a pocket veto, which cannot be overridden by Congress. Additionally, the President has the authority to appoint judges and public officials, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

Federal law applies to all US citizens

In the United States, Congress is the federal branch of the government responsible for making laws. A bill is a proposal for a new law or a change to an existing law. The idea for a bill can come from a sitting member of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives, or be proposed during their election campaign. Bills can also be petitioned by people or citizen groups who recommend a new or amended law to a member of Congress that represents them. Once a bill is introduced, it is assigned to a committee whose members will research, discuss, and make changes to the bill. If the president chooses to veto a bill, in most cases, Congress can vote to override that veto, and the bill becomes a law.

While Congress can make federal laws, it cannot directly modify or rewrite state laws. The U.S. Supreme Court has limited the authority of Congress to directly regulate the operations of state governments, and this is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. However, Congress can pass laws that inspire states to modify their own laws. For example, a new federal law might put stronger conditions on federal funding, which could lead a state to change its law regarding college funding or highway operation.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This amendment also provides a set of fundamental "privileges and immunities" that protect citizens' rights against abuses by the federal government and their own state governments. These rights include equal protection under the law, privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship, and due process of law.

It is important to note that the interpretation of citizenship and the application of laws can be complex and subject to change through legal decisions. For example, the Dred Scott case ruled that freed slaves were not considered citizens under common law. However, the Fourteenth Amendment repudiated this decision by stating that citizenship is granted to all persons born in the United States, regardless of race or previous condition of slavery.

State laws only apply to citizens of that state

The United States Constitution does not contain a clear and comprehensive rule about either national or state citizenship. However, the Fourteenth Amendment grants US citizenship to everyone born in the country and subject to its laws. It is important to note that this does not include individuals over whom the US does not exercise full territorial prescriptive or adjudicatory jurisdiction, such as foreign diplomats and members of Indian tribes.

Prior to the Civil War, state citizenship was of significant importance as it granted access to the jurisdiction of federal courts. At this time, one theory of citizenship suggested that national citizenship was dependent on state citizenship, implying that only those who were state citizens under state law were citizens of the United States.

Following the Civil War, the 39th Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which affirmed that all persons born or naturalized in the US were citizens of the country and the state in which they lived. This Act aimed to address discriminatory laws, commonly known as "Black Codes," enacted by the former Confederate states that restricted the rights of former slaves.

While the US Constitution does not explicitly state that laws apply universally to all citizens, it does include provisions, such as Article IV, which ensure that citizens of each state are entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in all other states. This indicates a degree of uniformity and fairness in the application of state laws.

Supremacy Clause addresses conflict between state and federal laws

The Supremacy Clause is among the Constitution's most significant structural provisions. It establishes the federal government's robust role in managing the nation's affairs and preventing states from interfering. The Clause holds that federal statutes enacted by Congress are part of the "supreme Law of the Land," taking precedence over state laws. This principle, that valid federal statutes preempt conflicting state laws, is well-established and not controversial.

The Supremacy Clause was included in the Constitution to address problems with the Articles of Confederation, which lacked a provision declaring federal law superior to state law. This resulted in federal statutes not binding state courts unless implemented by state legislation. The Clause was added to the Constitution in 1788, following a convention called by the Confederation Congress to revise the Articles. While it did not generate significant disagreement at the convention, it sparked intense controversy during debates over the Constitution's ratification.

The Supremacy Clause has been invoked by the Supreme Court to uphold federal treaties and statutes over conflicting state laws. For example, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court used the Clause to establish that federal law prevailed over state law, enabling the enforcement of the treaty ending the Revolutionary War and the chartering of a central bank. The Court has also recognized several types of preemption, including field preemption and conflict preemption. Field preemption occurs when federal law is so pervasive that it leaves no room for state supplementation or when the federal interest is dominant. Conflict preemption arises when compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or when state law hinders federal objectives.

While the Supremacy Clause generally gives federal law precedence over state law, the Supreme Court has also limited Congress's authority to directly regulate state governments. This anti-commandeering doctrine holds that Congress cannot compel states to enact specific laws. For instance, in New York v. United States (1992), the Court ruled that the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act unconstitutionally directed states to enact legislation.

Federal government cannot require states to keep marijuana illegal

The federal government cannot require states to keep marijuana illegal due to the anti-commandeering doctrine, which limits the authority of Congress to directly regulate the operations of state governments. This doctrine was articulated in the US Supreme Court case New York v. United States (1992), which held that the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 unconstitutionally forced states to enact legislation directed by the federal government.

Additionally, the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution prevents Congress from forcing states to mirror or enforce federal policies. This means that while marijuana is still classified as a Schedule I Drug under federal law, states have the autonomy to create their own laws and regulations regarding marijuana possession, distribution, and use.

The Department of Justice's 2013 Cole Memo further reflected this stance of non-interference, advising federal prosecutors to prioritize marijuana enforcement only when states failed to provide "robust" regulation. This memo was rescinded in 2018 by then-US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, but the policy of non-enforcement has continued under the Trump and Biden administrations.

The result is a stalemate where the federal government neither supports nor actively pushes back against state marijuana regulations. This dual sovereignty allows states to act as "laboratories of democracy," implementing rules for cultivation, licensing systems, and taxes for marijuana growth and sale, despite the federal government's stance on marijuana as a Schedule I Drug.

While there is a conflict between state and federal laws, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, which states that federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land," has not been used to preempt state marijuana regulation laws. This is because state laws only apply to citizens within a particular state, and federal law enforcement continues to focus on marijuana revenue that funds gangs, supports distribution to minors, and facilitates transport across state lines.

Frequently asked questions