Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Trapezohedron]

I'm not too much familiar with American politics, but I'm getting rather interested by them, so I posit my question here: Can State Law override Federal Law? How and why?

[Pnx]

Federal law is supposed to override state law (they fought a war over this one), but there's cases where the federal law is loose enough, or leaves clauses for states to go around it.

[guessingo]

Only with the legalization of marajuana

[Bumber]

Nope:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#State_legislative_actions_in_protest_of_federal_actions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Only the Supreme Court can declare Federal Law unconstitutional. (Which, in the case of marijuana, they haven't. The Federal government can still arrest you for possessing even medical marijuana, in spite of State Law. In practice, I don't think they will unless you're distributing.)

[nenjin]

The states have the powers not specifically mentioned as belonging to the Federal government. So when the Federal government has taken a law for itself, the states are subject to it.

This is why a Federal ban or approval of gay marriage was such a big deal, back when anyone thought our government could make a decision of that magnitude. Adoption of federal marriage laws would have forced all states to accept the ruling of the law. Instead it was left up to the states to create their own marriage laws, and for the Federal courts to rule on those laws as constitutional or unconstitutional.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

State laws overruling federal laws is known as nullification, and officially it is never permitted. It is never permitted because the last time nullification became a big thing, it resulted in a civil war. That said, the Federal government does sometimes choose to let specific things go if they feel it is not worth the trouble.

[GlyphGryph]

So, practically, yeah. I don't know if there's a specific obligation for state level authorities to actually enforce most federal laws, so it becomes a case of "They have made their laws, now let them enforce them." And they can enforce them, but it's a lot harder when you don't get local help.

[freeformschooler]

So, practically, yeah. I don't know if there's a specific obligation for state level authorities to actually enforce most federal laws, so it becomes a case of "They have made their laws, now let them enforce them." And they can enforce them, but it's a lot harder when you don't get local help.

That makes sense, but (to use the marijuana example) how does that work out in states where it's "a thing?" If you live in, for example, California, would you see federal agents cruising the streets alongside local police, and only need to watch out for one of them?

[Bumber]

That makes sense, but (to use the marijuana example) how does that work out in states where it's "a thing?" If you live in, for example, California, would you see federal agents cruising the streets alongside local police, and only need to watch out for one of them?

I doubt you'd ever see the federal agents cruising the streets. Waste of their time. You don't need to watch out for county police if it's for medical use (otherwise it's a $100 fine for having under an ounce in California.) The federal agents run secret raids on large-scale operations. (You won't see them coming.)

But pretty much yeah, unless the federal government has secured the local police's cooperation on an issue.

[kaenneth]

Where the Feds will get you if with the IRS.

Normally, when you run a business, you get to deduct your costs from your income, giving profit, of which a certain % goes to the feds.

However, they've ruled that since marijuana dispensaries are illegal (even though unenforced) you cannot deduct costs, and you owe a % of ever penny taken in; which would end up being more than you profited.

That why it's best to run a grow of as a cooperative, with no money changing hands.

[stabbymcstabstab]

You can still deduct costs as they can't make you disclose where your profits come from so unless they raid your store which is doubtful it's entire legally because of that pesky 5th amendment and a few other laws making it so illegal businesses are still considered businesses and are taxed as such.

[Heron TSG]

Generally, state laws are written in such a way as to not conflict with federal laws. There are notable exception, like the state laws pertaining to marijuana here in my state of Washington and in several other states.

Minimum wage laws are a more clear-cut example. Every state has to enforce the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour. In Washington, we have a law mandating a minimum wage of $9.32/hour. There aren't any conflicts because any employer paying the state minimum wage is also paying above the federal minimum wage. The city council of Seattle recently enacted a bill that will raise Seattle's minimum wage to $15/hour by 2021. A Starbucks restaurant in downtown Seattle in that circumstance would have to pay each of their workers at least $15. A few blocks away in one of the suburbs of Seattle, another Starbucks would be able to pay their workers $9.32. There are several states that have the same minimum wage that the federal law mandates, but they couldn't enforce a law that lowers that minimum. (Although they could potentially pass one, it wouldn't be enforceable.)

Most state laws are written to cover situations that federal law leaves open for discussion. Federal laws don't really cover how the Washington State Department of Transportation will pay for the state highway system, so laws were written to create taxes and road-tolls to accommodate. There are federal laws that determine the maintenance policies of the federal (interstate) highway system, but the specific details of the maintenance are left up to the state. The state could decide when to plow the snow off of the interstate, what equipment to use, and who to hire to do it, but the federal government indirectly requires them to create protocols for that by mandating that the roads be made clear as promptly as possible after becoming blocked.

[Sensei]

Only with the legalization of marajuana

This is an interesting case study. While Washington and Colorado have no power to stop feds from arresting someone for marijuana charges, they passed the law and just... haven't had it challenged. That could change at any time, but it's probably not going to because it would almost certainly cost whoever tried to enforce it their office come the next round of voting.

For examples of state laws that HAVEN'T been able to survive a conflict with federal law, you might want to look up state laws that have been held unconstitutional and this struck down. There's laws for which one could make a good argument are unconstitutional, but often they stand until the culture and times change enough that people are no longer willing to accept them (see: flag burning, sodomy).

[arbarbonif]

There are also other ways to get around federal laws at the state level.  I believe Alaska's constitution makes it illegal for the government to invade your property without it being for a violent crime.  So drug raids (for purely drugs) are illegal, even if there are laws being violated.  So it is still illegal, just the act of enforcement is also illegal...

[BurnedToast]

There are also other ways to get around federal laws at the state level.  I believe Alaska's constitution makes it illegal for the government to invade your property without it being for a violent crime.  So drug raids (for purely drugs) are illegal, even if there are laws being violated.  So it is still illegal, just the act of enforcement is also illegal...

Federal officers are immune to state persecution for any action that they reasonably believe is necessary for the performance of their federal functions.

So if the feds suspected you of having drugs, and obtained a warrant, they could legally raid your house, no matter what the state law says.