Cecily Zamora
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all laws enacted at the federal, state, and local levels must abide by its tenets. The Supremacy Clause, which forms the basis of the country's federal political structure, establishes the supremacy of federal law over state law. This means that federal law takes precedence over state law in the event of a conflict between the two. The Supreme Court, as the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation, can review state laws and invalidate those that contradict the Constitution or federal statutes. This power of judicial review ensures that state laws do not supersede the authority of the federal government as established by the Constitution.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Supremacy Clause | Federal law takes priority over state law |
| Federal law is supreme | |
| Federal preemption | |
| Federal law wins regardless of the order of enactment | |
| Federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution | |
| Federal government cannot violate constitutional limits on federal power | |
| Congress can restrict what state law can say about certain topics | |
| State laws cannot interfere with the disposition of the public domain by Congress | |
| State laws cannot impose invalid burdens on interstate commerce | |
| State laws cannot deny equal protection of the laws |
Explore related products
![Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61R-n2y0Q8L._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
State laws that violate the constitution
The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution establishes federal law as the "supreme Law of the Land", giving it priority over any conflicting state laws. Federal statutes and treaties, however, must be within the parameters of the Constitution and not violate constitutional limits on federal power. The US Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, allowing it to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution.
- A Minnesota statute repealing all former tax exemption laws and providing for the taxation of lands granted to railroads, which impaired the obligation of contracts.
- A Kansas statute that regulated public stockyards was found to violate the Equal Protection Clause as it applied to only one stockyard company in the state.
- A Kentucky constitutional provision on long and short-haul railroad rates was held invalid where interstate shipments were involved.
- A Kentucky law prohibiting the sale of liquor to an inebriated person was found to violate the Commerce Clause when applied to a carrier delivering liquor from another state.
- A Texas act stipulating that only those who had previously served two years as freight train conductors or brakemen could serve as railroad train conductors was arbitrary and effected a denial of equal protection of the laws.
- A Maryland law that exacted a higher rate of traders' license from nonresidents than residents violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
- A Missouri act that issued certificates in denominations of 50 cents to $10, payable in discharge of taxes or debts owned to the state, violated the constitutional prohibition against the emission of "bills of credit" by states.
- A Kansas law that imposed certain requirements as a prerequisite to doing business in the state and suing in its courts was found to be an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce when applied to foreign corporations.
Law Degree: A Fast Track to Joining the FBI?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61qrQ6YZVOL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
State laws that interfere with federal law
The Supremacy Clause is a cornerstone of the US federal political structure, and it assumes the underlying priority of federal authority. The Supremacy Clause is a constitutional provision that identifies the supremacy of federal law over state law. It follows Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which states that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the [Congress], on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them."
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, wrote that "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."
- A Maryland law that required non-residents to pay a higher rate for a trader's license than residents, violating the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2.
- A North Carolina statute that levied a tax on the franchise and property of a railroad company that had been granted a tax exemption, impairing the obligation of the contract.
- A Kansas law that imposed certain requirements on foreign corporations engaged in interstate commerce as a prerequisite to doing business in Kansas and suing in its courts.
- A Washington law that accorded a contractor or subcontractor a lien on a foreign vessel for work done, with no provision to protect the owner if the contractor was fully paid before the notice of the subcontractor's lien was received. This deprived the owner of normal defences and constituted invalid interference with admiralty jurisdiction exclusively vested in federal courts.
Trump's Pardon Power: Can He Pardon a Professor?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
State laws that interfere with interstate commerce
The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes the priority of federal law over state law. It assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, albeit only when that authority is expressed in the Constitution. Federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution and must not violate other constitutional limits on federal power.
The Commerce Clause, which is derived from the Supremacy Clause, gives Congress jurisdiction over numerous aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce. It also provides comprehensive powers to the United States over navigable waters. The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete, and it acknowledges no limitations other than those prescribed in the Constitution.
Furthermore, in West Lynn Creamery Inc. v. Healy, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts state tax on milk products because it impeded interstate commercial activity by discriminating against non-Massachusetts citizens and businesses. Similarly, in Ward v. Maryland (1871), a Maryland law that exacted a higher trader's license fee from nonresidents than from residents was found to violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2.
Sharia Law: A Force for Peace?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
State laws that violate the Supremacy Clause
The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under its authority are the "supreme Law of the Land", taking precedence over any conflicting state laws. This clause upholds the priority of federal authority and ensures that state laws cannot supersede the Constitution.
- McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): The state of Maryland levied a tax on the federally incorporated Bank of the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that this tax was unconstitutional as it gave Maryland the power to destroy a federal institution, which would make the state superior to the federal government, contradicting the Supremacy Clause.
- Ableman v. Booth (1859): The Supreme Court held that state courts could not issue rulings that contradicted the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause. This case established that federal court judgments take precedence over state laws or rulings.
- Missouri v. Holland (1920): The Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause allows the federal government to make treaties that supersede state laws, even if they abrogate states' rights under the Tenth Amendment.
- Edgar v. MITE Corp. (1982): The Supreme Court ruled that a state statute is void if it conflicts with a valid federal statute, emphasizing that compliance with both federal and state laws must be possible.
- Arkansas Statutes on Desegregation: The state of Arkansas adopted statutes to nullify federal desegregation rulings. The Supreme Court relied on the Supremacy Clause to uphold federal law, stating that it could not be nullified by state statutes or officials.
- Kansas Law on Foreign Corporations: Kansas imposed requirements on foreign corporations engaged in interstate commerce, including obtaining permission from the State Charter Board and paying license fees. The Supreme Court held that these requirements could not be constitutionally applied to foreign corporations, as a state cannot exact a franchise for engaging in interstate commerce.
- Texas Act on Railroad Train Conductors (1914): This act stipulated that only those with prior experience as freight train conductors or brakemen could serve as railroad train conductors. It was deemed arbitrary and a denial of equal protection of the laws, violating the Constitution.
- Alabama Taxes on Vessels: Alabama levied taxes on vessels owned by its citizens and used in intrastate commerce, violating the constitutional prohibition against states levying tonnage duties.
- Maryland Traders' License Law: A Maryland law charged higher rates for traders' licenses to non-residents compared to residents, violating the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, § 2.
- Louisiana Act of 1906: This act impaired an obligation of contract by repealing a prior act and sequestering property acquired by a canal company, conflicting with the Constitution.
These cases demonstrate how the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal law and the Constitution take precedence over state laws, maintaining a clear division of power between federal and state authorities.
Common-Law Spouses: RI Probate Court Recovery Options
You may want to see also
Explore related products
State laws that are vague or violate due process
In the United States, state laws that are vague or violate due process can be deemed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law and constitutional interpretation, and can overrule decisions by state courts. The Supremacy Clause, which is considered a cornerstone of the US federal political structure, specifies that federal acts take priority over state acts that conflict with federal law.
The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution give rise to the void-for-vagueness doctrine. This doctrine requires that laws are written so that citizens can explicitly understand what conduct is punishable. If a law is too vague for the average citizen to understand what acts or duties are required or restricted, it may be deemed void and unenforceable. For example, in Johnson v. United States (2015), the Supreme Court ruled that the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague and violated due process. The clause provided for enhanced prison sentences for those with prior violent felony convictions, but the Court found that it left significant uncertainty about how to assess the risk posed by a crime.
In another case, Kentucky's criminal and antitrust provisions were found to be void for vagueness and in violation of due process. The provisions prohibited combinations that established prices that were greater or lower than the "real market value" of an article as established by "fair competition". However, the lack of clarity around what constituted "real market value" and "fair competition" made the provisions unconstitutionally vague.
Additionally, in Skilling v. United States (2010), it was held that a "penal statute must define the criminal offense (1) with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and (2) in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." This highlights the importance of ensuring that laws are clear and specific to avoid violating due process rights.
The Due Process Clause also applies to civil matters. For instance, in the context of punitive damages, the Court has indicated that while the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment does not apply to awards of punitive damages between private parties, a "grossly excessive" award of punitive damages violates substantive due process. This is because it exceeds what is reasonably necessary to vindicate the state's legitimate interests in punishment and deterrence.
Teaching English with a Law Degree: Is It Possible?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Supremacy Clause is a constitutional provision that identifies the supremacy of federal law over state law. It assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, which is expressed in the Constitution.
No, state laws cannot contradict the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law takes priority over state law in the case of a contradiction.
If a state law contradicts the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, which allows it to invalidate the state law for violating a provision of the Constitution.
No, federal laws cannot contradict the Constitution either. Federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution and not violate constitutional limits on federal power.
In the case of a conflict between state and federal law, the Supremacy Clause gives priority to federal law. The Supreme Court has the final say in such matters and can overrule decisions by state courts.
