Leave Marriage to the States Aug 11, 2010
Whether the feds use the 14th Amendment (but never the 10th), the Supremacy Clause, Interstate Commerce any stick will do to beat a dog these are parts of the Constitution that once had solid and definable meanings, but their definitions have now been stretched so far that they can be construed to mean virtually anything. When Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was asked by Oklahoma Sen. (The American Conservative)
BLOW TO O: MO SAYS NO Aug 5, 2010
In the closing days of the campaign, many politicians 'sidled up" to Proposition C, Cunningham said, seeing the momentum the issue had gained. Among them was U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, who won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate on Tuesday night. Late last week, Blunt announced his support of Proposition C. On Monday, Blunt said he hoped Missouri voters would send a "ballot box message" to the Obama's administration by overwhelmingly passing the measure. The question now is whether the... (The Drudge Report)
Bolton's Ruling: SB 1070 Breakdown Aug 5, 2010
VI of the U.S Constitution contains what is known as the "Supremacy Clause." Article VI states the, "Constitution and the laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme law of the land ... anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.". In other words, the Constitution, a federal enactment, is the "supreme law of the land." Like every state, Arizona must take a back seat to the federal government if its laws directly conflict with federal laws, according... (Suite101.com)
Our views: Political theater (Aug. 3) Aug 4, 2010
The amendments aim was to stoke the partys base in an election year, ignoring the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution that says federal law trumps state law. Leon County Circuit Judge James Shelfer found another fatal flaw Thursday, calling the amendments summary manifestly misleading to voters and striking it from the Nov. 2 ballot. (Florida Today)
Prop C - Nation Is Watching Missouri Primary Aug 3, 2010
Many legal scholars think the courts would overturn it based on the supremacy clause of the constitution, meaning state law cannot trump federal law. Regardless of what happens with Prop C Tuesday in Missouri, there are countless legal challenges ahead for the health care bill. (FOX61, CT)
Missouri's Referendum: Will the Show-Me State Show Up Obamacare? Aug 3, 2010
"I was under the impression we resolved the issue of the supremacy clause and states' rights with the Civil War." Democrats in the Missouri legislature had consciously maneuvered Prop C onto the August ballot. The argument was that it would be better to hold the referendum this month than let it become a rallying point for the GOP in November, when retiring Senator Christopher "Kit" Bond's seat is up for grabs. (Time.com)
Long fight ahead over Arizona law Jul 29, 2010
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution also provides that when federal and state law conflict, it is the U.S. law that will always carry the day. It is these provisions that underlie the Obama administration's challenge to the Arizona law. (CNN -- US)
New Black Panthers, You're Free To Go -- Not So Fast, Arizona Jul 20, 2010
Instead, the administration argues, federal laws on immigration pre-empt Arizona's law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. State laws are pre-empted by federal law in two circumstances: When there is a conflict -- such as "sanctuary cities" for illegals or California's medical marijuana law -- or when Congress has so thoroughly regulated a field that there is no room for even congruent state laws. (Human Events Online)
Holder Mulls Second Fed Lawsuit Against Ariz. Jul 13, 2010
Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Mr. Obama's lawsuit was breaking new ground in "a misuse" of the supremacy clause of the Constitution. "Never before have we challenged something because it might lead to something. There's nowhere in the Constitution that says a state is limited to what it absolutely won't do and can be stopped for what it might do," he said. (Newsmax)
Injunction likely on AZ immigration law Jul 8, 2010
it s main argument being the legal doctrine of preemption, based on the Constitution s supremacy clause of federal law over state statutes. Manning, partner in the Phoenix office of Stinson, Morrison and Hecker, said seeking the injunction citing federal supremacy was a clever move by the Obama administration, because the injunction deals with authority rather than racial issues, making it more likely to be granted. (Phoenix Business Journal, AZ)
Feds to file lawsuit Jul 8, 2010
The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics. (Green Valley News & Sun, AZ)
Show and Transcript - Summer Show Jul 8, 2010
The Obama administration's argument is based on the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. It says when state and federal laws conflict with each other, the federal law is the one that counts. (CNN -- US)
Q&A on the lawsuit Jul 7, 2010
A: The law is flawed in three ways, the suit claims: under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, under its Commerce Clause and because of a legal doctrine known as pre-emption. Q: What's the Supremacy Clause ... A: The doctrine, based on the Supremacy Clause, holds that certain matters are of such national importance that federal law pre-empts or takes precedence over state laws. (AZCentral)
Justice Dept. sues Ariz. over immigration law Jul 7, 2010
The Arizona law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, the lawsuit says, invoking as its main argument the legal doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Constitution s supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. The Justice Department argues that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility and says an injunction is needed to prevent irreparable harm to the United States. (Boston Globe)
Open-Borders DOJ vs. America Jul 7, 2010
Perez, Attorney General Eric Holder and the rest of the open-borders DOJ team have invoked a "preemption" doctrine based on the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause to attack Arizona's anti-illegal immigration measure and oppose local and state enforcement of federal immigration laws. Never mind that the Arizona law was drafted scrupulously to comply with all federal statutes and the Constitution. (Human Events Online)
Feds claim immigration law is unconstitutional Jul 7, 2010
The heart of the legal arguments focus on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, a theory that says federal laws override state laws. The lawsuit says there are comprehensive federal laws on the books that cover illegal immigration - and that those statutes take precedent. (Athens Banner-Herald)
Reaction to suit Jul 7, 2010
" U.S. Sen. Mitchell McConnell, R-Ky., Senate minority leader. John Kavanagh "The supremacy clause argument requires proof that we are pre-empting either the U.S. Constitution or federal law and we are not. What we are pre-empting is not the law but the Obama administration policy of not adequately enforcing immigration law. (AZCentral)
federal government suing Arizona Jul 7, 2010
The lawsuit alleges the Arizona law violates the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which says the federal law trumps any conflicting or inconsistent state law ... "The Supremacy Clause argument requires proof that we are pre-empting either the U.S. Constitution or federal law, and we are not," Kavanagh said. (AZCentral)
Immigration idea stirs up Neb. town Jun 22, 2010
The reason according to Marsh: Both laws violated the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy clause and the 14th Amendment. In addition, she said it's the federal government's responsibility to set immigration policy and "we are not well-served when communities or states try to set policy on their own.". (CNN)
Arizona law won’t hold up in court Jun 18, 2010
The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution states that federal law preempts, or trumps, state law. SB 1070 requires Arizona officials to question people about their immigration status where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution -- Opinion)
What Kagan Should Say Jun 15, 2010
State efforts to nullify federal law are not only flatly prohibited by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause but represent a refusallike resistance following Brown v. Board of Educationto appreciate the lessons of the Civil War and the Reconstruction Amendments that followed. In Kentucky, Rand Paul followed his victory in the Republican Senate primary last month by arguing that the federal government lacked the authority to outlaw discrimination in hotels and restaurants under the Civil... (Slate)
'Punish Chrysler' bill is signed Jun 11, 2010
Colorado s dealer statute grants rejected dealers specific statutory rights previously afforded only to existing dealers, and are preempted in accordance with the Bankruptcy Court s prior rulings and as such are in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. We are considering our legal options. (Denver Business Journal, CO)
The New Nullification Movements Jun 3, 2010
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution refers to the founding document and to federal laws and treaties as the supreme Law of the Land ... The federal balance between the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment was maintained as long as each level of government stuck to its constitutional areas of concern. (The American Conservative)
Arizona: Read Our Immigration Law! Jun 1, 2010
While the federal government under the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, has asserted preemptive rights over immigration law, states can and do enforce federal laws ... During the court proceedings, for which I was present as a defendant, Judge Bury rejected the plaintiffs lawyers arguments regarding the Supremacy Clause as contrary to the intent of Congress with regard to the enforcement of IIRIRA.. (Human Events Online)
Arizona, a rogue state at war May 28, 2010
It is reckless because -- when this law is hauled before a federal judge, as it will be -- opponents will argue that the measure violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by usurping federal authority to enforce immigration law. And that's the very thing that proponents seem to be admitting in their bravado. (CNN -- US)
Arizona violating treaty set by U.S. May 25, 2010
Constitutional scholars have criticized the legislation by invoking the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents states from usurping the federal government's authority to regulate immigration. But what has been largely absent from the public debate about the legality and morality of SB 1070 is Arizona's blatant violation of international human rights law, as. (CNN -- US)
Class action suit challenges Ariz. immigration law May 22, 2010
The suit charges that the Arizona measure unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The action also charges that the law invites racial profiling against people of color in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments. (New Mexico Business Weekly, NM)
IMMIGRATION: Arizona problems only beginning May 1, 2010
Latino civic groups such as the have vowed to fight the law, most likely by invoking the Supremacy Clause and the 14th amendment. Although it's impossible to predict the outcome of such cases, one thing is certain: Arizona will be wasting a lot of money defending this new law. (USA Today -- News)
SB1070 Unconstitutional Apr 29, 2010
Immigration has always been the sole purview of the federal government, making SB1070 a direct challenge to the federal governments supremacy, as stipulated by the supremacy clause of the constitution. In short, SB1070 plays to the worse demons of our justice system, inciting the baser nature of the people this very law claims to protect. (Nogales International, AZ)
preemption doctrine, Apr 28, 2010
The constitutional challenge to the law will likely be that it is by existing federal immigration law, and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, but the constitutional question is far from clear. The aims to assist in enforcement of federal laws against illegal immigration. (Harper's Magazine)
Court fight looms on new immigration law Apr 25, 2010
Under the Constitution's "supremacy clause," the Constitution and federal law trump state law ... "This is one of the most extreme and direct attempts by a state to regulate immigration law, and that is prohibited by the supremacy clause of the Constitution," she said ... Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law who counseled Pearce when he was writing Senate Bill 1070, said Arizona simply is taking action on what Congress already has deemed illegal,... (AZCentral -- News)
Matt Reed: Is Tea Party rhetoric for real? Apr 18, 2010
Nevertheless, the whipped-up crowd roared when speaker Mark Vance shouted something about the Supremacy Clause. He demanded we take back control of the school system because, he says, it fails to teach the Constitution. (Florida Today)
Georgia Joins Lawsuit against Healthcare Overhaul Apr 15, 2010
Legal scholars think the suit is likely to end up in the hands of the Supreme Court, but many agree that the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which puts the powers of the U.S. government above those of the states, will prevail. "We welcome Georgia to our efforts to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens as well as the sovereignty of our states," McCollum said. (Newsmax)
Gingrich: Government shutdown could happen over healthcare battle Apr 14, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010. By Jordan Fabian - 04/13/10 10:45 AM ET. (TheHill.com)
Health Care Will Be at Center of High Court Hearing Apr 12, 2010
Those state laws are obviously invalid under the supremacy clause unless the federal law is unconstitutional. Is it. (Human Events Online)
AG: Federal law trumps Health Freedom Act Apr 7, 2010
Cooper s opinion states that the legislation, if passed, would be superseded by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and directly conflicts with the federal law s intent to achieve near-universal health insurance coverage. Cooper also wrote that he is not required to defend state legislation if he believes it is unconstitutional. (Nashville Business Journal, TN)
Lithwick: Why the State Legal Challenges to Health Care Reform Will Fail Mar 27, 2010
But he knows he can't readily overcome the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause, which expressly states that federal law shall be the "supreme Law of the Land." Yet Cuccinelli maintains that the Virginia statute doesn't have any problems with the supremacy clause, because the whole health care reform stature is unconstitutional. Isn't that what he's asking a court to determine in the first place. (Slate)
An impeach Thurbert Baker movement? Mar 25, 2010
The supremacy clause does exist in the Constitution, but it requires that any law passed by the federal government be consistent with the Constitution. This bill is not being posed as legal under the supremacy clause, but under the commerce clause, which is where most federal power grabs take place. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution -- Metro)
Media Literacy Question of the Day Mar 24, 2010
What is the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. What does one legal scholar predict will happen if this case ends up in the U.S. Supreme Court. (CNN -- US)
Show and Transcript: March 24 Mar 24, 2010
That supremacy clause has stood the test of time ... But they're not about to overturn 200 years of constitutional history and interpretation, and declare that the supremacy clause is no longer in effect ... ACOSTA: Do you believe in the supremacy clause. (CNN -- US)
Illegal Health Care Bill? Mar 24, 2010
And normally, as you know, the supremacy clause would lead to the federal bill trumping, except when it is not constitutional, and that's where our allegation that the bill is unconstitutional comes in. They have overreached the commerce clause here, and we don't think the commerce clause can support this bill. (Fox News)
Ohio groups want voters to tackle healthcare reform Mar 23, 2010
Organizers said it's all possible under the Constitution's supremacy clause. "In this case, under the 10th amendment we actually do have the ability as Ohioans when it's not related to commerce," Littleton said. (FOX19.com, OH)
Fla. Republicans take aim at Obama's health care bill Mar 23, 2010
But even lawmakers' own analysts pointed out in a study of the bill that the federal government has ultimate authority over conflicts with state law under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. "That sounds like a lot of sound and fury that means nothing," University of Florida Levin College of Law Emeritus Professor Joseph W. Little said of the proposed amendment. (The Palm Beach Post)
Idaho first to sign law against health care reform Mar 20, 2010
Idaho's law faces an even bigger challenge, he said, by setting up a direct conflict with the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution. "That language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law," said Freeman. (MSNBC -- Politics)
Health care and the states: Sound and fury Mar 19, 2010
The constitution s supremacy clause is clear: federal law trumps state law, and should congressional Democrats suddenly find their spines and pass the bill, a state could no more ban it than it could enact segregation or declare their citizens exempt from federal income tax ... If the constitutional challenges are unsuccessful, then the mandate becomes, by virtue of the supremacy clause, the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the... (The Economist)
Tea Party Group Argues for Recall of N.J. Senator Mar 3, 2010
"The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution has historically trumped even state constitutions," said Ben Dworkin, director of the Rider University Institute for New Jersey Politics. "There is no reason to believe it doesn't in this case as well.". (Newsmax)
Idaho House passes bill aimed at scuttling health reform Feb 11, 2010
Constitutional law experts have said the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution likely means any federal law requiring people to buy insurance would likely prevail over state laws aiming to undo that. Thats one reason why many Democratic lawmakers, in Idaho and elsewhere, see bills like these as more symbolism than substance: Conservatives, always keen to defend their sovereignty, are telling Washington, D.C. to keep their mitts off states rights. (Ontario Argus Observer, OR)
Wyoming, other states seek to ban mandatory health insurance Feb 4, 2010
If this Congress were to pass an individual mandate, and if it is constitutional which I believe it is the express rule under the supremacy clause (of the U.S. Constitution) is that the federal law prevails. . (Gillette News-Record, WY)
States Push Bills Banning Health Reform Feb 3, 2010
"If this Congress were to pass an individual mandate, and if it is constitutional which I believe it is the express rule under the supremacy clause (of the U.S. Constitution) is that the federal law prevails.". Many Democratic lawmakers are skeptical of both the intent and the effect of the state measures, entitled in many states as the "Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act." Some have derided it as "political theater" or an attempt to merely shape the public debate. (CBS News -- Health)
Lawmaker: Wolves aren't welcome Jan 27, 2010
If enacted, the bill is probably unconstitutional, violating the supremacy clause where federal law supersedes state law, according to the state's Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. Utah already has a management plan that allows wolves into the state, compensates livestock owners for losses and allows for them to be killed or relocated if they drive down game populations. (Casper Star-Tribune, WY)
Use Constitution Jan 26, 2010
In many respects, both groups make good points, however, the argument ultimately should be decided constitutionally and with precedent, specifically using the 14th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By passing Proposition 8, California is in clear violation of the 14th Amendments Due Process and Equal Protection clauses: States (the people) cannot legally take away the rights of others without due process of law or deny any person the equal protection of the... (Fresno Bee -- Opinion)
Caldara offers health opt-out initiative Jan 16, 2010
Under the U.S. Constitution s Supremacy Clause, federal law is superior to state law. But Caldara expects the amendment would pass legal muster in court. (Denver Business Journal, CO)
