cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Constitutional question

Since all of you rightwingers seem to have the Constitution memorized, maybe one of you can answer this question.  Does the Constitution say anything about state laws NOT superseding federal law?  Reason for asking later.

19 Replies
BA Deere
Senior Contributor

Re: Constitutional question

After a quick search it doesn`t look like anything in the Constitution preventing a state, even states other than Texas from succeeding from the Union. However, even that it`s an issue speaks volumes of the current Commander in Chief.

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Constitutional question

Look, guy, I'm going to try to be very nice about this but you are really trying.  The word you are looking for is "SECEDE" to withdraw from, and NOT "SUCCEED"!!  Every state and, indeed, every person has the right to SUCCEED!  Neither is the word I asked about.  My question was if a state can make a law that SUPERSEDES a federal law on the same subject.  In other more simple terms, can a state look at a federal law and then pass a law in the state that says they don't have to do it?  Got it now?

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Constitutional question

Never mind.  I found the answer and it was what I thought but didn't know the specific language.  

 

The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution allows federal law to override state law. 

It reads: "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."

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_law_allows_federal_law_to_override_state_law#ixzz1CvDgQEax

 

The reason I was asking is that the kooks here in our state legislature in AZ have come up with another good.  The same guy that gave 1070 a couple of months ago has now introduced a bill proposing that the state of AZ will NOT comply with any aspect of the Health Care bill EVEN THOUGH US Constitution clearly states that a state law cannot supersede a federal law on the same topic.   I would think that as much as these folks like to say something is unconstitutional that they would know when their suggestion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Of course, I also think that they only think the Constitution is good when it agrees with their view and non-existent when it doesn't.

BA Deere
Senior Contributor

Re: Constitutional question

I figured you were setting a gotcha trap on the Obamacare issue  Smiley Very Happy  . What do you say about states that have "decriminalized marjuana"?   They`re going against federal law yet have taken the teeth out of enforcement.  The federal government is not paramount over state law if that law is unconstitutional. The last Judge to rule on Obamacare will deside.

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Constitutional question

The states which have "medical marijuana" are not in violation of federal law.  Very simple.  You are correct in that if a federal law is RULED unconstitutional by the SC, then it is no longer a law and therefore, would not be viable anywhere.  However, the state of AZ is considering violating the Constitution because some in the state legislature are arrogant enough to think that they know better than anyone else what is and is not Constitutional.  The health care law has NOT been ruled unconstitutional as yet.

idleriver
Contributor

Re: Constitutional question

Monday Florida federal district Judge C. Roger Vinson became the second jurist to rule Congress has no authority to force Americans to buy a particular product such as health insurance.

Judge Vinson said in his ruling that since Obamacare is unconstitutional, his ruling is an order to the government to stop implementing it.

If the govt appeals to a higher court (Circuit Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court)... and if they apply for a stay of execution of the District court's ruling, and if the higher court grants that stay, then the govt can keep implementing Obamacare until a final hearing.

A poster on another board has pointed out that there is a Federal law saying that, if a court throws out a law, there is a two-week grace period in which the govt can keep enforcing the law. After that, they must stop, unless a court issues a stay or overrules the first ruling.

This is my understanding of the ruling

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Constitutional question

How do you rectify the fact that 2 others have ruled that it is constitutional along with 1 more saying it isn't.  Do you think only the last one has precedence or that the two ruling in your favor have the most effect?  I don't think so any more than I think the two that ruled for it have the most say in it.

BA Deere
Senior Contributor

Re: Constitutional question

Hey Schnurrbart, don`t you think top Democrats are secretly praying Obamacare is found unconstitutional? They really didn`t think it would be this unpopular, if the Supreme Court throws it out it with help them save face. A good lot of Democrats will act like OJ Simpson trying on a glove in their defense of Obamacare.  Smiley Happy  Start from scratch, THIS time include Republicans!!!