Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal law prevails over state law due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause, and that federal law "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes ..." Thus, state ...
The Constitution does not contain any clause expressly providing that the states have the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional. Supporters of nullification have argued that the states' power of nullification is inherent in the nature of the federal system. They have argued that before the Constitution was ratified, the states essentially were separate nation
Any decision by the administration to defy federal courts would immediately implicate profound constitutional questions about separation of powers that have kept each branch of the government in ...
National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000), that even when a state law is not in direct conflict with a federal law, the state law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives". [30]
While such a challenge is yet to materialize, the federal courts have a few options to enforce their orders, according to constitutional law professor Justin Levitt, who previously served as a ...
"Cities and states that pretend that the federal rules don’t apply to them are just violating the constitution, violating our freedom,'' former New York Gov. George Pataki said Sunday.
Even without a conflict between federal and state law or an express provision for preemption, the courts will infer an intention to preempt state law if the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to "occupy the field" in that area of the law, i.e. to warrant an inference that Congress did not intend the states to supplement it. Gade v.
It is not clear whether such a sweeping federal buyout, with promises of payments eight months into the future, can be legally implemented, particularly as the federal government’s funding is ...