|
|
|
|
Supremacy Clause
|
| |
|
| |
The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, article VI, paragraph 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, mandating that state judges uphold them, even if state laws or constitutions conflict.
The Fourteenth Amendment
Striking similarities exist between the supremecy clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Supremacy Clause' Start a new discussion about 'Supremacy Clause' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, article VI, paragraph 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, mandating that state judges uphold them, even if state laws or constitutions conflict.
Text
The Fourteenth Amendment
Striking similarities exist between the supremecy clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". On the one hand, both are parts of the US Constitution that define the federal government's rule over the States. One difference, though, is that whereas the supremecy clause deals with the relationship between the federal government and the states, the fourteenth amendment deals with the relationship between federal government, states and citizens, emphasis being placed on the citizens.
History
One of the earliest examples of the Supreme Court ruling that a state law violated the constitution under the Supremacy Clause came in the landmark McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), wherein the court ruled that the state of Maryland could not tax the Second Bank of the United States, establishing the principle that the states could not tax the federal government.
In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that, "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute." In effect, this means that a state law will be found violating the supremacy clause when either (1)
compliance with both federal and state law is impossible, or (2) "state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress" (Dow Chem. Co. v. Exxon Corp. (Fed Cir 1998))
In a similar opinion, Stone v. City and County of San Francisco (968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992)), the court held on the issue of injunction and remediation, "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme." In this case, prisoners sueing for tort damages appealed to federal remediation law, suggesting that in their case, federal law applied (though it might not in every instance of remediation). The court agreed and granted compensation where federal law was applicable.
PGE. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, is a Supreme Court case that lays out a variety of tests that may be used to determine if state statutes are superseded or preempted by federal legislation. In this case, California blocked the building of Atomic Energy facilities. PGE contested that the State's injuntion was preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act. It was held that the Act does indeed hold supremacy over California, but the State's specific barring of the plants did not violate the Act, or specifically, because the state stoped the plants because of economic, rather than safety reasons, the Act was not violated.
Concerns
There has been some debate (and fear) as to whether or not some of the basic principles of the United States Constitution, such as the country's system of government or Bill of Rights could be affected by an ambitious treaty. Since the constitution states that a treaty has supremacy over "any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding," it has been argued that the potential for abuse is present.
In the 1950s a constitutional amendment known as the Bricker Amendment was proposed in response to such fears; it would have mandated that all US treaties not conflict with the existing powers granted to the US government. Subsequent legal precedents, notably, Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955) and Reid v. Covert, , ultimately established some of the limitations sought by the Bricker Amendment.
See also
|
| |
|
|
