New Legislation Would Ban NSA From Arizona

[happyslug]

33. The Supremacy clause only comes into play when they is a direct conflict

For example, if the Federal Law says it is illegal to do X, the State can NOT say X is legal. On the other hand, the Supremacy clause does not mean ALL Federal Law supersedes state. In the Case involving DOMA, the court ruled the FEDERAL LAW as to who the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will recognized as Married, violated the Constitution, for what is a marriage is reserved to STATE LAW ONLY. Thus the Federal Government can NOT pass a law in areas reserved to the States and then claim the Supremacy Clause.

Now, the court has taken an expansive view of the Federal power to regulate Interstate commerce, to include anything that affects interstate commerce, even if the act in question all occur in one state (The 1941 case where the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on someone growing wheat on his land, that he intended to use himself is an example of that).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Actual Case:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/case.html

Now, that case is a little more complicated then growing wheat for one's own use (the farmer in question had received money from the Federal Government in regards to other wheat he was growing) but the ruling is the furthest expansion of the Commerce Clause.

Remember the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was ruled to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court for it was based on the post Civil Rights amendments, and the court ruled those amendments only protected the rights in the Constitution itself not the Bill of Rights and thus the rights protected in the 1875 Civil Rights Act were viewed as outside the power of Congress granted in the Post Civil War Amendments. The 1875 act would almost be reenacted in the form of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but the 1964 Civil Rights Act was justified under the Commerce Clause and thus upheld by the Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875
Here is the Civil Rights Case that ruled the above unconstitutional:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/109/3/case.html

Thus unless a court finds that something has to do with interstate Commerce, the Federal Government had a very limited field of authority. In the case involving the Federal Ban on Guns within 100 feet of a School, the US Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for guns in such areas were CLEARLY not affecting interstate commerce. i.e It was unconstitutional for the Federal Government to ban pistols in such locations, but it would be Constitutional for a State to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
Actual Case:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/549/case.html

And since I am citing cases, lets don't forget Printz vs US:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/case.html

In Printz, the US Supreme Court ruled is was UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Federal Government to REQUIRE State Sheriffs (or other county chief law enforcement officers) to perform background checks on the grounds they were EMPLOYEES of the STATE EXECUTIVE and thus could NOT be ordered by Congress to do what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT wanted them to do UNLESS such power was expressly granted to Congress by the US Constitution.

Also look at New York vs US, another Commerce Clause case:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/144/case.html

In that case the US Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government can NOT compel a state to "take title" to low level radioactive waster produced within its borders (and produced NOT by the state but other, mostly private users of the waste). The Federal Government could take title, it could pay the state to take the waster, but the Federal Government could NOT compell the state to take the waste itself on the grounds both the state and federal Government were sovereign and that law in NOT permitted under the Commerce Clause.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States