The ability to enforce laws that contradict any federal law, treaty, or the constitution. If state law says 'A' and Congress passes a law that says 'B', or the US enters a treaty that says B, then the federal law overrides the state law.
Congress is only able to take action using the Supremacy Clause if its actions are within an area in which Congress holds authority. If it doesn't have the authority, the Supremacy Clause is invalid. Intent also needs to be established. In other words, the law must have been created for the purpose of superseding the policy of the state.
A supremacy clause allows the National Government to out do smaller levels of Government, in doing so can prevent unfair policies and a lack of justice in that form of Government that's all wrong.
this question is an opinion question. the fact that the federal government can ever feel undermined my a state's decision means that the federal government is indeed not supreme and the supremacy clause should be defined unsupported. But alas that is not the case so my answer is that since the supremacy lies within the federal govt any decision that states make that opposes the federal govt does not undermine the federal, however, allows the states to use their reserved powers that given to them in the constitution in the tenth amendment.
Take away rights of individuals and states.
One way the Constitution addresses conflicts between state and federal government is through the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2. This clause establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under its authority are the supreme law of the land, meaning they take precedence over state laws when there is a conflict. Consequently, if a state law contradicts federal law, the federal law prevails, ensuring a consistent legal framework across the country.
The Supremacy Clause says that federal laws, including the U. S. Constitution, take precedence over any state law. The Supremacy Clause appears in Article six of the Constitution.
Congress is only able to take action using the Supremacy Clause if its actions are within an area in which Congress holds authority. If it doesn't have the authority, the Supremacy Clause is invalid. Intent also needs to be established. In other words, the law must have been created for the purpose of superseding the policy of the state.
1918 supramacy its a cool thing
A supremacy clause allows the National Government to out do smaller levels of Government, in doing so can prevent unfair policies and a lack of justice in that form of Government that's all wrong.
when federal and state laws conflict, federal laws take precedence so long as they are judged to be constitutional
Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the supremacy clause, establishes that when a conflict arises, US law take precedence over state law. Article 1, clause 18 of the Constitution, also known as the necessary and proper clause, affirms that Congress has necessary power over the states and was passed to clarify conflicting perception of the states rights granted in the Articles of Confederation.
Yes, the Federalists supported the Supremacy Clause, which is found in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. They believed it was essential for establishing a strong central government and ensuring that federal laws would take precedence over state laws. This was seen as necessary to maintain national unity and prevent conflicts between states. The Federalists argued that a strong federal authority was vital for the effective functioning of the new government.
b.) A state passes a law that contradicts the nineteenth amendment. EXPLANATION: Just took the quiz on APEX (honors gov quiz 2.2.3)
The principle of supremacy of national law asserts that federal laws take precedence over state laws and constitutions when there is a conflict. This principle is enshrined in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), which establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land. As a result, state laws that contradict national legislation are invalid. This principle ensures a uniform legal framework across the country, maintaining the integrity of federal authority.
Yes, in the sense that the Article VI, Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution holds the Constitution, federal law and US treaties take precedence over state laws when the two were in conflict.
this question is an opinion question. the fact that the federal government can ever feel undermined my a state's decision means that the federal government is indeed not supreme and the supremacy clause should be defined unsupported. But alas that is not the case so my answer is that since the supremacy lies within the federal govt any decision that states make that opposes the federal govt does not undermine the federal, however, allows the states to use their reserved powers that given to them in the constitution in the tenth amendment.
The Supremacy Clause is found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution and establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under its authority are the supreme law of the land. This means that when state laws or constitutions conflict with federal laws, federal laws take precedence. It ensures a uniform legal framework across the country, emphasizing the authority of the federal government over state laws in areas where both have jurisdiction.