I'm a Federalist....like Thomas Jefferson.......and let's face the actual facts....until the constitutionality is tested and determined by the highest court in the land........Federal law has precedence.
"State laws only govern the citizens within a particular state, but federal laws apply to all U.S. citizens. When state and federal laws clash, think of the federal law as the trump card. In theory, a state law that goes against federal law is null and void, but in practice, there's a bit more of a gray area. What it really comes down to is enforcement. If a state defies federal law, but the federal government doesn't enforce its law in that state, is federal law really the trump card?
The Doctrine of Pre-emption and The Supremacy Clause
The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution [source: FindLaw]. The supremacy cause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation. Basically, if a federal and state law contradict, then when you're in the state you can follow the state law, but the fed can decide to stop you.
Arizona's immigration law is a great example of the federal government fully enforcing the supremacy clause. When Arizona passed a very strict immigration law, the federal Justice Department sued them to overturn it under the supremacy clause. A spokesman from the Obama administration stated that the reason it went after Arizona is that the state law had international implications, especially in Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Proponents of the Arizona law said that the state was just enforcing federal law, since the feds would not do it and illegal immigrants were costing Arizona a lot of money. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Court overturned parts of the law and upheld others. The operative term here, though, is "can."
Historically, the federal government has not cracked down every single time a state and federal law contradict. If state law contradicts federal law but it's not something that affects national security or international relations, the feds might not intervene. In Nevada, certain counties have legalized prostitution, which also violates federal law, but the federal government has so far not enforced the doctrine of pre-emption in Nevada. Prostitution is illegal according to U.S. federal law, but under Nevada state law, counties with a population of less than 700,000 people can legally have legal brothels [source: Tan]. Unlike in Arizona, the federal government has not sued the state to shut down prostitution, and unlike California's medical marijuana dispensaries, the fed has not raided any brothels in the state. You could argue that prostitution is also an international issue, since human trafficking is certainly a problem that crosses state and national borders, but the federal government has not taken any action in Nevada."
The " information " is obtained thru the Internet and as far as I know and understand the application of precedence in law ....any state may enact laws that are equal to or more stringent than Federal Law on the same subject but can "never" pass laws that contradict or reduce the prescribed penalties under the Federal law if convicted.
That's my understanding of this matter.....and just saying or claiming that state rights prevail and citing that the Feds don't challenge it sounds as silly as John Boehner's lawsuit....just because someone bellows a falsehood or mistruth doesn't make it true......there's more important issues in our nation than going after marijuana laws being enacted ....which the residents of that state obviously approved............and that's the genuine reason that the Feds aren't looking to challenge states rights but when they do....they usually win.
Matt B.