query: according to the supremacy clause which level of government is supreme

pos: Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them." A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself. No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of

pos: Sanctuary city because the U.S. Constitution does not provide a clear answer. Both federal and local government offer arguments to defend their authority. The issue of jurisdiction has been vigorously debated dating back to the Alien Act of 1798. Opponents of local level policing tend to use the Naturalization Clause and the Migration clause in the Constitution as textual confirmation of federal power. Because the Supremacy Clause is generally interpreted to mean that federal law takes priority over state law, the U.S. Supreme Court in the majority of cases has ruled in favor of the federal government. Certain states have been affected

pos: Supremacy Clause several statutes designed to nullify the desegregation ruling. The Supreme Court relied on the Supremacy Clause to hold that the federal law controlled and could not be nullified by state statutes or officials. In "Edgar v. MITE Corp.", , the Supreme Court ruled: "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 to violate the Supremacy Clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist: In 1920, the Supreme Court applied the Supremacy Clause to international treaties, holding in

pos: Supremacy Clause Supremacy Clause The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law. In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause

pos: Supremacy Clause the whole American political structure. In Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, the Supremacy Clause is introduced as part of the New Jersey Plan. During the debate, it is first put up for a motion by Luther Martin on July 17th where it passed unanimously. In Federalist No. 33, Alexander Hamilton writes about the Supremacy Clause that federal laws by definition must be supreme. If the laws do not function from that position then they amount to nothing, noting that "A law, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule which

pos: Supremacy Clause In "Ableman v. Booth", 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify

pos: Passenger Cases states unless the federal government chooses to exercise the same power, when state regulation is trumped by the federal action. Although he recognized that both Congress and the states may impose a tax on the same object, he insisted that the respective taxations result from the exercise of distinct powers and do not represent any concurrent exercise of the same power. It is unclear what role the Supremacy Clause had in McLean's constitutional theory since he apparently viewed each level of government as supreme in its own legitimate and distinct sphere of operations. One of the key debates in the

pos: Federal and state environmental relations is reflected in regulation. Some problems are addressed at the federal level or the state level, while others are regulated by both. Under the 10th amendment, any area over which the federal government does not have authority is under state authority. Federal regulation preempts state and local legislation under the supremacy clause when the two conflict, and under the Dormant Commerce Clause when federal legislation is silent and states seek local protectionism. In many situations of environmental regulations, state and federal governments have Concurrent powers, where each government is permitted to have its own regulation. When the federal government would

pos: Federal preemption Federal preemption In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with federal law. According to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2) of the United States Constitution, 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

pos: Federal preemption Congress’s legislative power and conflicting state law." The court then explained why preemption was not applicable to the PASPA provision prohibiting states from authorizing sports betting: Federal preemption In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with federal law. According to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2) of the United States Constitution, 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

pos: Ableman v. Booth The Court noted that if the Wisconsin courts could annul the judgment of conviction by the federal district court in this case, then any state court could annul any conviction under federal law. The Court held that the states do not have that power. The Court stated that in adopting the Constitution, the people granted certain powers to the federal government: This was accomplished by adoption of the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law the supreme law of the land: The Court noted that the supremacy of federal law could be effective only if the federal government were given judicial

pos: Supremacy Clause the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments. In "Pennsylvania v. Nelson", 350 U.S. 497 (1956) the Supreme Court struck down the Pennsylvania Sedition Act, which made advocating the forceful overthrow of the federal government a crime under Pennsylvania state law. The Supreme Court held that when federal interest in an area of law is sufficiently dominant, federal law must be

pos: A Disquisition on Government According to the Supremacy Clause located in Article 6, laws made by the federal government are the "supreme law of the land" only when they are made "in pursuance" of the U.S. Constitution. These ideas are convincing if one shares Calhoun's conviction that a functioning concurrent majority never leads to stalemate in the legislature; rather, talented statesmen, practiced in the arts of conciliation and compromise would pursue "the common good", however explosive the issue. His formula promised to produce laws satisfactory to all interests. The ultimate goal of these mechanisms were to facilitate the authentic will of the white populace.

pos: Supremacy Clause Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. In "Martin v. Hunter's Lessee", 14 U.S. 304 (1816), and "Cohens v. Virginia", 19 U.S. 264 (1821), the Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause and the judicial power granted in Article III give the Supreme Court the ultimate power to review state court decisions involving issues arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Therefore, the Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law, including constitutional interpretation, and can overrule decisions by state courts. In "McCulloch v. Maryland", 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), the Supreme Court

pos: Supremacy Clause the case of "Missouri v. Holland", 252 U.S. 416, that the Federal government's ability to make treaties is supreme over any state concerns that such treaties might abrogate states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also held that only specific, "unmistakable" acts of Congress may be held to trigger the Supremacy Clause. Montana had imposed a 30 percent tax on most sub-bituminous coal mined there. The Commonwealth Edison Company and other utility companies argued, in part, that the Montana tax "frustrated" the broad goals of the federal energy policy. However, in the case of "Commonwealth Edison

pos: Supremacy Clause noted that state legislatures were invested with all powers not specifically defined in the Constitution, but also said that having the federal government subservient to various state constitutions would be an inversion of the principles of government, concluding that if supremacy were not established "it would have seen the authority of the whole society everywhere subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members". The constitutional principle derived from the Supremacy Clause is federal preemption. Preemption applies regardless of whether the conflicting laws come from

pos: James v. Dravo Contracting Co. James v. Dravo Contracting Co. James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 (1937), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that a state's corporate income tax did not violate the Supremacy Clause (Article Six, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution by taxing the Federal government of the United States. Dravo Contracting Company was a general contracting business incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania. It was also licensed to do business in the state of West Virginia. In 1932 and 1933, Dravo signed four contracts with the Federal government of the United States to

pos: Trail of Tears United States federal government by imposing state laws on Cherokee lands. The Court ruled in Worcester's favor, declaring that the Cherokee Nation was subject only to federal law and that the Supremacy Clause barred legislative interference by the state of Georgia. Chief Justice Marshall argued, "The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community occupying its own territory in which the laws of Georgia can have no force. The whole intercourse between the United States and this Nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States." Andrew Jackson did not listen to the Supreme Court

pos: Intergovernmental immunity Intergovernmental immunity In United States Constitutional Law, intergovernmental immunity is a doctrine that prevents the federal government and individual state governments from intruding on each other's sovereignty. It is also referred to as a Supremacy Clause immunity or simply federal immunity from state law. The doctrine was established by the United States Supreme Court in "McCulloch v. Maryland" (1819), which ruled unanimously that states may not regulate property or operations of the federal government. In that case, Maryland state law subjected banks not chartered by the state to restrictions and taxes. In "McCulloch's" case, state law had attempted to impose

pos: De Veau v. Braisted United States Constitution (better known as the Supremacy Clause) and subsequent Supreme Court rulings establish that states are barred from acting in an area of law where the federal government has already asserted jurisdiction through the passage of law. Additionally, of the Constitution (often called the "Compact Clause") bars states from entering into compacts or agreements with one another without the express approval of the United States federal government. Thus, for the New York–New Jersey legislation to survive constitutional scrutiny, the federal government would also need to approve it. Congress did exactly that, and on August 12, 1953 (two and

pos: Intergovernmental immunity this policy was creating traffic hazards in Washington, D.C., and New York City. Intergovernmental immunity In United States Constitutional Law, intergovernmental immunity is a doctrine that prevents the federal government and individual state governments from intruding on each other's sovereignty. It is also referred to as a Supremacy Clause immunity or simply federal immunity from state law. The doctrine was established by the United States Supreme Court in "McCulloch v. Maryland" (1819), which ruled unanimously that states may not regulate property or operations of the federal government. In that case, Maryland state law subjected banks not chartered by the state

pos: Supremacy Clause reviewed a tax levied by Maryland on the federally incorporated Bank of the United States. The Court found that if a state had the power to tax a federally incorporated institution, then the state effectively had the power to destroy the federal institution, thereby thwarting the intent and purpose of Congress. This would make the states superior to the federal government. The Court found that this would be inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law superior to state law. The Court therefore held that Maryland's tax on the bank was unconstitutional because the tax violated the Supremacy Clause.

pos: States' rights very little, if any, authority to overrule individual state actions. The Constitution subsequently strengthened the central government, authorizing it to exercise powers deemed necessary to exercise its authority, with an ambiguous boundary between the two co-existing levels of government. In the event of any conflict between state and federal law, the Constitution resolved the conflict via the Supremacy Clause of Article VI in favor of the federal government, which declares federal law the "supreme Law of the Land" and provides that "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State

pos: James v. Dravo Contracting Co. land, or if the tax is otherwise supported by federal law (such as federal taxes on cigarettes or motor fuels). James v. Dravo Contracting Co. James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 (1937), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that a state's corporate income tax did not violate the Supremacy Clause (Article Six, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution by taxing the Federal government of the United States. Dravo Contracting Company was a general contracting business incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania. It was also licensed to do business in the state

pos: Article Six of the United States Constitution immunized from taxes, as the tax would not in any way impede government activities. "Gibbons v. Ogden" (1824) was another influential case involving the supremacy clause. The state of New York had granted Aaron Ogden a monopoly over the steamboat business in the Hudson River. The other party, Thomas Gibbons, had obtained a federal permit under the Coastal Licensing Act to perform the same task. The Supreme Court upheld the federal permit. John Marshall wrote, "The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the Constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of

pos: Judicial review in the United States judicial power in Article III state: The Supremacy Clause of Article VI states: The power of judicial review has been implied from these provisions based on the following reasoning. It is the inherent duty of the courts to determine the applicable law in any given case. The Supremacy Clause says "[t]his Constitution" is the "supreme law of the land." The Constitution therefore is the fundamental law of the United States. Federal statutes are the law of the land only when they are "made in pursuance" of the Constitution. State constitutions and statutes are valid only if they are consistent with

pos: Constitution of Virginia Constitution of Virginia The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia is the document that defines and limits the powers of the state government and the basic rights of the citizens of the U.S. Commonwealth of Virginia. Like all other state constitutions, it is supreme over Virginia's laws and acts of government, though it may be superseded by the United States Constitution and U.S. federal law as per the Supremacy Clause. The original Virginia Constitution of 1776 was enacted in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence by the first thirteen states of the United States of America. Virginia was an early

pos: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution seize a $42,000 vehicle under state law in addition to the imposition of a $1,200 fine for drug trafficking charges, house arrest, and probation. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause applies only to the federal government, because the Supreme Court has not expressly ruled that it applies to state and local governments. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 28, 2018, during which the Justices seemed to be leaning toward incorporating the Excessive Fines Clause. According to the Supreme Court, the Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some other punishments

pos: Nullification (U.S. Constitution) Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798. Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification. The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws. Between 1798 and the

pos: States' rights to the Contrary notwithstanding." However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself (see above). When the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which provide a classic statement in support of states' rights and called on state legislatures to nullify unconstitutional federal laws. (The other states, however, did not follow suit and several rejected the notion that states

pos: Antoine v. Washington the Supremacy Clause because Congress enacted a federal statute relating to Indians, which is binding on the states. The state was represented by Joseph Lawrence Coniff, Jr., Assistant Attorney General for Washington. The state argued that since the federal government could not enter into a treaty with the Colville tribe, the Supremacy Clause did not apply. Further, the 1891 agreement was a contract, not a treaty, and as a contract could not bind the state since the state was not a party to the contract. Since the northern half was returned to the public domain, Washington had the authority to

pos: Freedom of information in the United States States Supreme Court found that Virginia's Freedom of Information Act, which grants only Virginia citizens access to public records and does not grant any such right to non-Virginians, does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause (which only protects those privileges and immunities that are "fundamental") or the Commerce Clause (specifically, the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine) of the United States Constitution. Freedom of information in the United States Freedom of information in the United States results from freedom of information legislation at the federal level and in the fifty states. The federal government is bound by several laws intended to

pos: Waterfowl hunting 1913 the United States Congress passed the Weeks–McLean Act regulating waterfowl hunting, however the states were successful in arguing that the constitution gave no such regulatory power to the federal government, and the statute was struck down. In response, the United States negotiated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 with the United Kingdom (which at the time was largely responsible for Canada's foreign affairs) covering the same substance, but would be constitutional because of the Supremacy Clause. The treaty was upheld by the Supreme Court in "Missouri v. Holland". In the United States, hunters must also purchase a federal

pos: Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions editor of the "Richmond News Leader", wrote a series of editorials urging "massive resistance" to integration of the schools. Kilpatrick, relying on the Virginia Resolution, revived the idea of interposition by the states as a constitutional basis for resisting federal government action. A number of southern states, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Virginia, and Florida, subsequently passed interposition and nullification laws in an effort to prevent integration of their schools. In the case of "Cooper v. Aaron", the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Arkansas' effort to use nullification and interposition. The Supreme Court held that under the Supremacy Clause, federal law was controlling

pos: Gibbons v. Ogden the United States." The part of the ruling which stated that any license granted under the Federal Coasting Act of 1793 takes precedence over any similar license granted by a state is also in the spirit of the Supremacy Clause, although the Court did not specifically cite this clause. The Court did not discuss the argument pressed for Gibbons by U.S. Attorney General Wirt that the federal patent laws preempted New York's patent grant to Fulton and Livingston. That question remained undecided for the next 140 years until the Supreme Court held in "Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co."

pos: Supremacy Clause Council", , 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". Congress need not expressly assert any preemption over state laws either, because Congress may implicitly assume this preemption under the Constitution. Supremacy Clause The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the

pos: United States v. Locke and preemtive powers in regulating interstate commerce. The court found that the states cannot pass laws that interfere with the federal government's authority over interstate commerce when a federal agency is granted exclusive jurisdiction by the United States Congress. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that "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." The Commerce Clause in Article I Section 8 of the United

pos: Tenther movement v. Darby Lumber", in which the Court stated that the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all [powers of the State Sovereign] is retained which has not been surrendered [by ratification of the Constitution and membership in the United States]". In summary, members of the Tenther Movement believe that the Tenth Amendment should be interpreted as requiring that the Federal Government's enumerated powers be construed narrowly. Supporters of the movement also believe that these Supreme Court rulings and the several States voluntary surrendering their powers is unconstitutional and because they violate Supremacy Clause and should be nullified.The Supreme Court,

pos: Missouri v. Holland States government had no constitutional right to negotiate and enforce a treaty concerning the hunting of waterfowl. Although the Court found sufficient jurisdictional basis for Missouri to enjoin an allegedly unconstitutional federal regulation -- due to the quasi-sovereign right of a state to regulate game hunting -- it ultimately ruled that the Supremacy Clause renders treaties the "supreme law of the land," and thus treaty provisions could not be challenged by the states through judicial review. The Court also reasoned that protecting wildlife was in the national interest and could only be accomplished through national (i.e. federal) action. "Missouri" is

pos: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico is defined by the Constitution and the laws of Puerto Rico. In general, the jurisdictional structure parallels that of the state Supreme Courts in the continental United States. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts to interpret federal laws, unless the Supremacy Clause requires otherwise. Judgments that stand on federal law grounds may be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court, unless an adequate and independent ground for the decision based in Puerto Rico commonwealth law is also present. The Court has the power of judicial review and its

pos: Goldstein v. California Congress with the power to enact copyright law, and thus state copyright was in principle valid. If states choose to protect more copyrightable works than the federal government does, they are not prohibited from doing so by the Supremacy Clause. He also held that state laws are not subject to the durational limitation the Copyright Clause enforces on federal copyright. Justice William O. Douglas filed a dissent asserting that the Supremacy Clause was implicated in state extension of copyright to materials not protected federally, just as it would for a state extension of duration beyond the term of a federally

pos: Article Six of the United States Constitution the Supreme Court confronted the Chief Justice of Virginia, Spencer Roane, who had previously declared a Supreme Court decision unconstitutional and refused to permit the state courts to abide by it. The Court upheld the Judiciary Act, which permitted it to hear appeals from state courts, on the grounds that Congress had passed it under the supremacy clause. The Supreme Court has also struck down attempts by states to control or direct the affairs of federal institutions. "McCulloch v. Maryland" (1819) was a significant case in this regard. The state of Maryland had levied a tax on banks not chartered

pos: Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority of the sovereignty of the states necessarily implies limits on the power of the federal government to regulate their employment relations. In the majority's view, the constitutional grant of authority to Congress to regulate interstate commerce was not qualified by any implied limitation on the right to regulate the activities of the states when they engaged in interstate commerce; on the contrary, the Commerce Clause invalidates state regulations that interfere with commerce, while the Supremacy Clause allows Congress to preempt state laws that conflict with federal law in this area. According to the majority, the framers believed that state sovereignty

pos: Legislature Representatives and Somalia's Transitional Federal Assembly (since replaced by the Federal Parliament of Somalia) tied for least powerful. Some political systems follow the principle of legislative supremacy, which holds that the legislature is the supreme branch of government and cannot be bound by other institutions, such as the judicial branch or a written constitution. Such a system renders the legislature more powerful. In parliamentary and semi-presidential systems of government, the executive is responsible to the legislature, which may remove it with a vote of no confidence. On the other hand, according to the separation of powers doctrine, the legislature in

pos: Nullification (U.S. Constitution) have the power to nullify federal laws. The courts have rejected the compact theory, finding that the Constitution was not a contract among the states. Rather, the Constitution was established directly by the people, as stated in the preamble: "We the people of the United States. . . ." The people made the federal government superior to the states in certain ways. Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Constitution and federal laws made in pursuance thereof are "the supreme law of the land . . . any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the

pos: Import-Export Clause purpose of the clause as: Import-Export Clause Article I, § 10, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Import-Export Clause, prevents the states and the federal government, without the consent of Congress, from imposing tariffs on imports and exports above what is necessary for their inspection laws and secures for the federal government the revenues from all tariffs on imports and exports. Several nineteenth century Supreme Court cases applied this clause to duties and imposts on interstate imports and exports. In 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Import-Export Clause only applied to imports and

pos: William T. Dzurilla state, and local school aid programs, which culminated in "Mitchell v. Helms", a U.S. Supreme Court decision overruling previous authority. Dzurilla also helped obtain a unanimous Louisiana Supreme Court decision finding Louisiana's forum non conveniens statute contrary to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, an appellate decision striking down Louisiana's Any Willing Provider statute as preempted by ERISA, and a U.S. Fifth Circuit opinion overturning a criminal mail fraud conviction on Double Jeopardy grounds. In 1990, on behalf of the Federal Bar Association's Democracy Development Initiative, Dzurilla spent two months in Moscow, Russia as an advisor to the Russian

pos: Import-Export Clause ports. The Export Clause (Art. I, §9, clause 5) prohibits the federal government from imposing any "tax or duty ... on articles exported from any state." The clause was proposed by southern states, which feared that northern states would control Congress and raise a disproportionate amount of revenue for the federal government from southern states through taxes on exports. The Export Clause has historically been interpreted in harmony with the Import-Export Clause. In "Brown v. Maryland" (1827), the Supreme Court remarked that "there is some diversity in language" between the Export Clause and Import-Export Clause, "but none is perceivable in

pos: Nullification (U.S. Constitution) Wisconsin court declared that the Supreme Court had no authority to review its decision. The Wisconsin legislature passed a resolution declaring that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the Wisconsin court's decision. In language borrowed from the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, the Wisconsin resolution asserted that the Supreme Court's review of the case was void. The Supreme Court held that Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify federal law or to prevent federal officials from enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. The Court held that in adopting the Supremacy Clause, the people of the United States had made federal

pos: Import-Export Clause Import-Export Clause Article I, § 10, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Import-Export Clause, prevents the states and the federal government, without the consent of Congress, from imposing tariffs on imports and exports above what is necessary for their inspection laws and secures for the federal government the revenues from all tariffs on imports and exports. Several nineteenth century Supreme Court cases applied this clause to duties and imposts on interstate imports and exports. In 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Import-Export Clause only applied to imports and exports with foreign nations and

pos: Pennsylvania v. Nelson Case was argued in front of the Warren Court whose members were: Earl Warren; Hugo Black; Stanley Reed; Felix Frankfurter; William O. Douglas; Harold Burton; Tom C. Clark; Sherman Minton; and John Marshall Harlan II. The Constitution of the United States establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land". This power, found in Article VI, Clause 2 is known as the Supremacy Clause. The text reads: This means that when federal and state authorities come into conflict, the federal law prevails. This is known as preemption: "a situation where a legitimate exercise

pos: James v. Dravo Contracting Co. absent a specific constitutional or legislative mandate. However, in "Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock", 347 U.S. 110 (1954), the Supreme Court held that when a contractor was merely the federal government's purchasing agent, the legal incidence of the tax fell on the United States and hence the tax was invalid. Further rulings by the Supreme Court, however, indicated that "Kern-Limerick" has extremely limited implications for Supremacy Clause jurisprudence and the ruling is limited to the facts in that case. States countered by imposing use taxes on corporations instead, and the Supreme Court upheld such taxes in "United States v. Boyd", 378

pos: Article Six of the United States Constitution Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law. The Supreme Court under John Marshall was influential in construing the supremacy clause. It first ruled that it had the power to review the decisions of state courts allegedly in conflict with the supreme law, claims of "state sovereignty" notwithstanding. In "Martin v. Hunter's Lessee" (1816),

pos: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution under police custody. The Fifth Amendment also contains the Takings Clause, which allows the federal government to take private property for public use if the government provides "just compensation." Like the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment includes a due process clause stating that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Fifth Amendment's due process clause applies to the federal government, while the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to state governments. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause as providing two main protections: procedural due process, which

pos: Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. prevent Sears from copying it. The Supreme Court made a similar ruling in a companion case decided the same day, "Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.", 376 U.S. 234 (1964). These two cases were the first decisions of the Supreme Court that states could not, because of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, create their own patent or patent-like laws. The issue had been raised, but not decided, in "Gibbons v. Ogden", 22 U.S. 1 (1824), in which Attorney General Wirt argued on behalf of the United States for federal patent preemption of New York's grant of a steamboat patent

pos: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius unconstitutionally coercive the Supreme Court found an enforceable limit on the Spending Power of the federal government. This limit on the Spending Power of the federal government is part of Neal K. Katyal's ruling analysis. Law professor Neal K. Katyal at Georgetown University, who served as acting solicitor general of the United States and argued the health care cases at the appellate level, argued that the Supreme Court ruling could change the relationship between the federal government and the states because of "the existence of an extraconstitutional limit" on the federal government's power under the Spending Clause. Katyal said that

pos: Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ahlborn the extent they provided for a contrary result. The opinion is also significant because the Court, without discussion, permitted a Medicaid suit to proceed where the cause of action was conferred by the Supremacy Clause. Most federal suits alleging violation of the Medicaid Act – which does not expressly confer a right of action – claim that the right of action is authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In recent years, the Supreme Court has made it more difficult to sue under § 1983 for statutory violations, requiring that the statutory provision in question unmistakably focus on individual rights. While

pos: Constitution of Puerto Rico Constitution of Puerto Rico The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico () is the controlling government document of Puerto Rico. It is composed of nine articles detailing the structure of the government as well as the function of several of its institutions. The document also contains an extensive and specific bill of rights. Since Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the United States, the Puerto Rico Constitution is bound to adhere to the postulates of the U.S. Constitution due to the Supremacy Clause, and of relevant Federal legislation due to the Territorial Clause. It was ratified by Puerto Rico's

pos: International child abduction in the United States may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by way of a petition for writ of certiorari. In 1922, the Court applied the Supremacy Clause to international treaties, holding in the case of "Missouri v. Holland", 252 U.S. 416 (1920), that the Federal government's ability to make treaties is supreme over any State concerns that such treaties might abrogate states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment. The Hague Abduction Convention is a multilateral treaty (in force since 1 December 1983) aimed at providing an expeditious method to return children who are victim of international child abduction. The Convention was drafted

pos: Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association that the anti-authorization provision was a valid preemption of state law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause, the court pointed out, "is not an independent grant of legislative power to Congress" but "[i]nstead, it simply provides a rule of decision." For a federal provision to validly preempt state law, "it must represent the exercise of a power conferred on Congress by the Constitution[,] pointing to the Supremacy Clause will not do", and "since the Constitution confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States, [the] provision at issue must be best read as one

pos: Import-Export Clause would need to be the primary source of revenue for the new federal government and that the federal government could more effectively impose tariffs on imports than the states could separately. In "Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages" (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court explained the purpose of this clause: The Tonnage Clause (Art. I, § 10, clause 3), prevents states from imposing taxes based on the tonnage (internal capacity) of a vessel, which is an indirect method of taxing imports and exports. At the time the Constitution was adopted, duties of tonnage were imposed on ships for entering or lying in

pos: Washington v. Davis Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the US Constitution. Since the respondents were filing the action in Washington, DC, a federal territory, not a state, the constitutional provision the plaintiffs sued under was the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment instead of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause directly applies only to the states, but the Supreme Court ruled in "Bolling v. Sharpe" that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which applies to the federal government, contains an equal protection component. The Supreme Court held that under

pos: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution calculated" to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to the states as well as to the federal government, but the Excessive Bail Clause has not been applied to the states. The Supreme Court will decide in "Timbs v. Indiana" whether the Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states. The Eighth Amendment was adopted, as part of the Bill of Rights, in 1791. It is almost identical to a provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, in which Parliament declared, "as their ancestors in like cases

pos: State legislation in protest of federal law in the United States laws purporting to nullify federal statutes or to exempt states and their citizens from federal statutes have only symbolic impact. These resolutions attempt to reassert state sovereignty over any area not listed among the "enumerated powers" (i.e., any law based on an "expansive reading" of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Supremacy Clause would, according to this resolution, be invalid). A "State Sovereignty Bill" is one step beyond a State Sovereignty Resolution. The bill would mandate action against what the state legislature perceives as unconstitutional federal legislation. Starting in 2012, in response to a threat of

pos: Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. under the present federal scheme, the Florida statute conflicts with the strong federal policy favoring free competition in ideas which do not merit patent protection. We therefore agree with the majority of the Florida Supreme Court that the Florida statute is preempted by the Supremacy Clause, and the judgment of that court is hereby affirmed. In 1998, Congress subsequently enacted the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act (VHDPA) as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, providing copyright-like or "sui generis" protection to boat hull designs, under a registration system something like that of the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act (SCPA). This

pos: Director of Revenue of Missouri v. CoBank ACB of that bank, requesting an exemption from all Missouri corporate income taxes and refunds on the taxes it paid for 1991 through 1994. CoBank asserted that the Supremacy Clause accords federal instrumentalities immunity from state taxation unless Congress has expressly waived this immunity, which the Act did not expressly do. The state of Missouri denied the request, but the Missouri State Supreme Court reversed, stating that because the Act's current version is silent as to the banks' tax immunity, Congress cannot be said to have expressly consented to state income taxation and, thus, the banks are exempt. Justice Clarence Thomas

neg: Supremacy Clause Relying on the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court held that the treaty superseded Virginia's statute, and that it was the duty of the courts to declare Virginia's statute "null and void". In "Marbury v. Madison", 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits. Citing the Supremacy Clause, the Court found Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be unconstitutional to the extent it purported to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme

neg: Supremacy Clause Co. v. Montana", , the Supreme Court disagreed. Any appeal to claims about "national policy", the Court said, were insufficient to overturn a state law under the Supremacy Clause unless "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained". However, in the case of "California v. ARC America Corp.", , the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressly "intended" to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the state action. The Supreme Court further found in "Crosby v. National Foreign Trade

neg: Supremacy Clause not clearly state whether or not preemption should apply, the Supreme Court tries to follow lawmakers’ intent, and prefers interpretations that avoid preempting state laws. In "Ware v. Hylton", 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the United States Supreme Court for the first time applied the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute. Virginia had passed a statute during the Revolutionary War allowing the state to confiscate debt payments by Virginia citizens to British creditors. The Supreme Court found that this Virginia statute was inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris with Britain, which protected the rights of British creditors.

neg: Supremacy Clause those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe. This results from every political association. If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed." In Federalist No. 44, James Madison defends the Supremacy Clause as vital to the functioning of the nation. He

neg: Legal interpretation in South Africa the new era of constitutionalism, it was Parliament rather than the Constitution which enjoyed supremacy. Statutes were divided simply into original legislation (Acts of Parliament) and subordinate legislation (such as regulations and proclamations). Now, however, the Constitution is supreme, and all other legislation subordinate to it. Today legislation is divided according to its status and its position in the hierarchy. "Hierarchy" is classification of legislation according to the level of government (national, provincial or local) whereat it is passed. Statutes which prevail over others are "superior" to them, and superior statutes can be either original or delegated,—see below—even within one

neg: Law of the land term was used in 1787 to write the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "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"..." The Supremacy Clause is the only place in the Constitution where this exact term was used. This term has been the subject of numerous scholarly works and judicial decisions over the years. Usually the English term is used, but sometimes the Latin: "lex terrae",

neg: Cooper v. Aaron noted that the school board had acted in good faith, asserting that most of the problems stemmed from the official opposition of the Arkansas state government to racial integration. Nonetheless, it was constitutionally impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause to maintain law and order by depriving the black students of their equal rights under the law. More importantly, the Court held that since the Supremacy Clause of Article VI made the US Constitution the supreme law of the land and "Marbury v. Madison" (1803) made the Supreme Court the final interpreter of the Constitution, the precedent set forth in "Brown

neg: Massachusetts Burma Law with violating the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The NFTC won the case with U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter ruling that "the state Act is preempted, and its application unconstitutional, under the Supremacy Clause." The law was thus nullified. Massachusetts Burma Law The Massachusetts Burma Law was a law enacted in 1996 by the Massachusetts legislature limiting state entities from purchasing services from companies doing business with Myanmar (Burma). A "restricted trade" list was compiled by the Commonwealth, which included 34 members of the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC). The NFTC filed suit against then-Massachusetts Secretary of

neg: Missouri v. Holland in fact constitutional, noting that Article VI, clause 2, sometimes known as the "supremacy clause," makes treaties the "supreme law of the land," a finding that nullifies any state-level concerns with regard to the provisions of any treaty, and further implying that treaty provisions were not subject to questioning by the states under the process of judicial review. In the course of his judgment, Holmes made this remark on the nature of the constitution: With regard to that we may add that when we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United

neg: Incorporation of international law Supremacy Clause (VI.2) of the United States Constitution states that "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land." However, the term "treaty" has a more restricted sense in American law than in international law. Of the more than 16,000 international agreements entered into by the United States between 1946 and 1999, only 912 were ratified by the required two thirds of the US Senate of the Treaty Clause of the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has also limited the direct effect of ratified treaties, notably

neg: First Amendment to the United States Constitution sense, but also, petitions on behalf of private interests seeking personal gain. The right not only protects demands for "a redress of grievances" but also demands for government action. The petition clause includes according to the Supreme Court the opportunity to institute non-frivolous lawsuits and mobilize popular support to change existing laws in a peaceful manner. In "Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri" (2011), the Supreme Court stated regarding the Free Speech Clause and the Petition Clause: The right of assembly was originally distinguished from the right to petition. In "United States v. Cruikshank" (1875), the Supreme Court held that the

neg: No Religious Test Clause such as the Oath of Supremacy, that the monarch of England was the head of the Church and that they possessed no other foreign loyalties, such as to the Pope. Later acts required officials to disavow transubstantiation and the veneration of saints. Such laws were common throughout Europe, where numerous countries had a state religion. The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision broadly, saying that "any" required oath to serve anything other than the Constitution is invalid. In the case of "Ex parte Garland", the Court overturned a loyalty oath that the government had tried to apply to pardoned Confederate

neg: John Marshall for the confiscation of debts owed to British subjects. Marshall argued that the law was a legitimate exercise of the state's power, but the Supreme Court ruled against him, holding that the Treaty of Paris in combination with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution required the collection, rather than confiscation, of such debts. According to biographer Henry Flanders, Marshall's argument in "Ware v. Hylton" "elicited great admiration at the time of its delivery, and enlarged the circle of his reputation" despite his defeat in the case. Vice President John Adams, a member of the Federalist Party, defeated Jefferson in the

neg: Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead to do no more than what the Commerce Clause would accomplish on its own terms. However, the statute did more than that, and forbids the New Mexico energy tax. Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead, 441 U.S. 141 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a New Mexico tax on the generation of electricity was invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Snead was the director of the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department. Most of the electricity generated at the Four Corners Generating

neg: Narragansett land claim that the state's actions violated the Indian Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause (via the Nonintercourse Act) of the Constitution, the tribe's claim was allowed under the "Ex parte Young" doctrine. The court did not reach the tribe's alternative argument that the state had consented to suit. "Narragansett II" preceded the Supreme Court's decision in "Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho" (1997) that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars any action that would have the effect of quieting title against a U.S. state. The parties reached a settlement on February 28, 1978, which—because it extinguished the tribe's aboriginal title—required Congressional legislation.

neg: Equal Protection Clause Act, in "United States v. Windsor". No state statute was in question, and therefore the Equal Protection Clause did not apply. The Court did employ similar principles, however, in combination with federalism principles. The Court did not purport to use any level of scrutiny more demanding than rational basis review, according to law professor Erwin Chemerinsky. The four dissenting justices argued that the authors of the statute were rational. In 2015, the Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection

neg: Caesaropapism the emperor) or the inhabitants of Byzantine Greece, Byzantine Syria, or Byzantine Sicily. When Henry VIII of England declared the Church of England to exist as an entity separate from and independent of the Roman Church, he declared himself to be the "Supreme Head" of that church, to which declaration the English Parliament acceded by passing the Act of Supremacy 1534 at Henry's behest. When Elizabeth I restored royal supremacy, she replaced the title "Supreme Head" with that of "Supreme Governor", a change both conciliatory to English Catholics on a political level and reflecting a shift toward a more metaphysically

neg: Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms democratic representation (§§3-5) are not among those that can be overridden with the notwithstanding clause (§§2,7-15).) The notwithstanding clause reflects the hybrid character of Canadian political institutions. In effect, it protects the British tradition of parliamentary supremacy under the American-style system of written constitutional rights and strong courts introduced in 1982. Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien also described it as a tool that could guard against a Supreme Court ruling legalizing hate speech and child pornography as freedom of expression. The idea for the clause was proposed by Peter Lougheed as suggested by Merv Leitch. The clause was a compromise

neg: Medellín v. Texas Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution] that 'all Treaties ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.'" In "Ware v. Hylton", the Supreme Court had agreed with a British creditor that a provision of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which had been ratified by the United States's Congress of the Confederation, overruled a Virginia state law regarding the repayment of debts to Britons; and, as the treaty was "addressed to the Judicial Branch", Congress had not had to enact a domestic law enforcing the treaty provision. Breyer's dissent was joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg. Medellín was

neg: Midland, Texas 97% of the county's population. A judge, elected on an at-large basis, provided a fifth vote, but the result was that the three rural commissioners, representing only three percent of the county's population, held a majority of the votes. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that the districting inequality violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause. The dissenting minority held that this example of the Warren Court's policy of "incorporation" at the local-government level exceeded the Court's constitutional authority. Midland is located in the Permian Basin in the plains of West Texas. According to the United States Census

neg: Chapter One of the Constitution of South Africa nine provincial delegations in the National Council of Provinces to amend it. Section 2, ""Supremacy of Constitution"", is the supremacy clause; it declares that any other law or conduct that is inconsistent with the constitution is invalid. This section gives the Constitutional Court and the other courts the power to overturn acts of Parliament, elements of the common law and actions of the executive that are unconstitutional. Section 3, ""Citizenship"", declares that there is a common South African citizenship, and that all citizens have equal rights and responsibilities. This is a response to the apartheid-era policies under which the government

neg: Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana Co. v. Montana" has been criticized by legal scholars for overturning "Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co." and subsequent rulings. Other legal scholars criticize the ruling for, in their view, undermining the importance of the fourth prong of the "Complete Auto Transit" test. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 (1981), is a 6-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a severance tax in Montana does not violate the Commerce Clause or the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. In 1975, concerned that Montana was a "stereotypical colonial

neg: Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 (1981), is a 6-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a severance tax in Montana does not violate the Commerce Clause or the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. In 1975, concerned that Montana was a "stereotypical colonial state" with little economic development whose natural resources would be extracted and the state left with severe environmental degradation, the Montana State Legislature enacted a severance tax on each ton of coal mined in the state. Then-Governor Tom Judge called the statute

neg: Christian right the courts, which have found that such displays violate the Establishment Clause. Public officials though are prohibited from using their authority in which the primary effect is "advancing or prohibiting religion", according to the Lemon Supreme Court test, and there cannot be an "excessive entanglement with religion" and the government. Some, such as Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, argue that the First Amendment, which specifically restricts Congress, applies only to the Congress and not the states. This position rejects the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Generally, the Christian right supports the presence of religious institutions within government

neg: Supremacy Clause assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject; and a state law is not to be declared a help when state law goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go. In "Reid v. Covert", 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the Supreme Court held that international treaties and laws made pursuant to them must comply with the Constitution. In "Cooper v. Aaron", 358 U.S. 1 (1958), the Supreme Court rejected attempts by Arkansas to nullify the Court's school desegregation decision, "Brown v. Board of Education". The state of Arkansas, acting on a theory of states' rights, had adopted

neg: D'Emden v Pedder the ideological basis of taxation, the relationship between the various American states and the Union, and the implications of the Supremacy Clause. The court went on to note that the principles enunciated in that case had been met with approval subsequently in United States cases, and also in cases in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick, and thus rebuffed an argument raised by the majority of the Supreme Court of Tasmania that the doctrine did not have support. The court rejected another argument raised by the majority of the Supreme Court: that it is necessary in every case

neg: United States v. The Amistad should be restored directly to the control of its owners. The Spanish denied that this meant that the Minister had waived the contention that they were property. By insisting that the case fell under the treaty of 1795, the Spanish were invoking the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which would put the clauses of the treaty above the state laws of Connecticut or New York, where the ship had been taken into custody, "no one who respects the laws of the country ought to oppose the execution of the treaty, which is the supreme law of the country." The

neg: Article Six of the United States Constitution that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the Constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it." "Reid v. Covert"

neg: Bricker Amendment 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." While executive agreements were not mentioned in the Constitution, Congress authorized them for delivery of the mail as early as 1792. Constitutional scholars note that the supremacy clause was designed to protect the only significant treaty into which the infant United States had entered: the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which ended the Revolutionary War and under which Great Britain recognized the

neg: Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead discriminatory tax burden. The electric companies then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the tax violated the Commerce and s of the Constitution and was invalid under 15 U.S.C. § 391. The Supreme Court reversed the New Mexico Supreme Court, holding that the New Mexico energy tax was invalid under the Supremacy Clause since it violated 15 U.S.C. § 391. The Court noted that the statute was directed specifically at a state tax on generation or transmission of electricity and not on the overall tax burden of electric companies. As the New Mexico Electrical Energy Tax on generation

neg: Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead Arizona Public Service Co. v. Snead, 441 U.S. 141 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a New Mexico tax on the generation of electricity was invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Snead was the director of the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department. Most of the electricity generated at the Four Corners Generating Station located in northwest New Mexico is transmitted for export and sold in neighboring states. In 1975 New Mexico enacted the Electrical Energy Tax Act, which imposed a tax

neg: Democracy and Totalitarianism of the Supreme Soviet of Russia turned into performances for the expression of approval for actions of the government. Citizens had defined civil rights under the Soviet Constitution of 1936, but these rights could be ignored "according to interests of workers". This clause permitted arbitrary action by the authorities. The Constitution of the Soviet Union was a show for the benefit of the West, according to Aron. Aron notes that the Bolsheviks justified themselves with the idea of a temporary dictatorship.It is possible to say of the affairs of Bolsheviks: "People make the history, but people don't understand history which

neg: Federalist No. 33 in 1788) to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution. Hamilton notes that the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause "have been the source of much virulent invective and petulant declamation against the proposed Constitution." This stirs up much of the issues amongst the people due to the uncertainty of the consequences of granting the government "too much power". He argues that the first clause is implicit in the constitution—if congress is granted a power, it must necessarily be able to draft laws that enable it to execute that power. Hamilton then applies this line of logic

neg: City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Marshall, dissenting in part and concurring in the result of invalidating the statute, argued that due to the history of discrimination against the intellectually disabled, the Court should employ a higher standard of scrutiny (see Equal Protection scrutiny) when examining laws that regulated those with mental disabilities. Although the U.S. Supreme Court declined to classify those with mental disabilities as a suspect or quasi-suspect class, the Cleburne decision represents one of the few instances in which the Supreme Court has held government legislation to be unconstitutional when applying a rational basis level of