Anytime there’s an effort to withdraw from a federal program, or take action to resist it – someone will claim that the “supremacy clause” means the states can’t do anything.Details
The media loves to trot out college professors as a way to shoot down every attempt to resist federal power. They’re cited as experts, and they almost always favor more federal power. Today we’ll cover a common example which shows they often don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.Details
Whenever we publish something about an anti-commandeering-style nullification bill, somebody inevitably responds with something along these lines. “I’m not a lawyer, but doesn’t federal law supersede state law?”
In short, the answer to that question is no.
In fact, the Supremacy Clause doesn’t even apply when it comes to anti-commandeering.Details
When we talk about the “supremacy clause” in the Constitution, we generally think of it in terms of establishing the supremacy of the federal government.
It does that.
But have you ever stopped to consider that the “supremacy clause” also declares the supremacy of the states and the people?Details
When the issue of federal power over states’ rights come into the forefront, Democrats are quick to cite the supremacy clause as beyond debate. Yet, Republicans often use the same talking points. When GOP policies need that extra “federal muscle,” Republicans imitate their political opponents and claim federal law as supreme without question.Details
The major argument used by those that oppose Nullification is the Constitution’s supremacy clause.
But in fact, the arguments for the supremacy clause ARE the arguments for nullification.Details
while the article is most directly about Article VI and the ways federal interests should and should not trump state law, it is more broadly about how original meaning can be implemented in an area with significant non-originalist judicial precedents.Details