The Supremacy Clause does state, that when a state law conflicts with a federal law, then... (keyword here legally speaking) GENERALLY federal law will supersede state law. But when a federal law conflicts with the constitution, it literally becomes null and void. All we as states are obligated to do, is stay within the frames of the constitution. As long as that is the case, federal law has not much ground to stand on trying to override state law. At least this is what I understood when I just read up on the matter.
FWIW, I think the Supremacy Clause is total bullshit.
The Federal Gummint's power should exist in providing for the common defense and ensuring Interstate Commerce not unfairly bound by bullshit State laws. And that's it.
But with fiat currency, highway funds, "free education", "free medical care" and things like the ERA, etc., the Federal Gummint is balls deep up our assholes.
Need a 9th and 10th Amendment Reinvigoration Plan.
The Supremacy Clause was also supposed to be limited by the 9th and 10th Amendments to severely cut down on what laws the Federal Government could pass.
The People and The States let that get way out of hand a long time ago.
I also doubt the Founding Fathers put this small provision in to supersede the previously mentioned Amendments. It is a clause not an AMENDMENT to give the Fed free reign on the states in whatever they attempt to decree.
Well the way I see it, is that the supremacy clause was only meant to be used if a state was trying to enact something very unconstitutional. Nothing more. Feds can go suck it.
The Supremacy Clause does state, that when a state law conflicts with a federal law, then... (keyword here legally speaking) GENERALLY federal law will supersede state law. But when a federal law conflicts with the constitution, it literally becomes null and void. All we as states are obligated to do, is stay within the frames of the constitution. As long as that is the case, federal law has not much ground to stand on trying to override state law. At least this is what I understood when I just read up on the matter.
This is the way I understand it.
Supremacy Clause, unless unConstitutional, and then it's Marbury vs Madison time...
P.S.
"Turd Ferguson. It's funny." "No. No it's not." "Yeah it is."
FWIW, I think the Supremacy Clause is total bullshit.
The Federal Gummint's power should exist in providing for the common defense and ensuring Interstate Commerce not unfairly bound by bullshit State laws. And that's it.
But with fiat currency, highway funds, "free education", "free medical care" and things like the ERA, etc., the Federal Gummint is balls deep up our assholes.
Need a 9th and 10th Amendment Reinvigoration Plan.
That's because it assumes the federal law in question is... legal. Invalid federal laws don't supercede state laws.
The Supremacy Clause was also supposed to be limited by the 9th and 10th Amendments to severely cut down on what laws the Federal Government could pass.
The People and The States let that get way out of hand a long time ago.
I also doubt the Founding Fathers put this small provision in to supersede the previously mentioned Amendments. It is a clause not an AMENDMENT to give the Fed free reign on the states in whatever they attempt to decree.
Well the way I see it, is that the supremacy clause was only meant to be used if a state was trying to enact something very unconstitutional. Nothing more. Feds can go suck it.