Supremacy Clause
| United States of America |
 This article is part of the series: |
| Original text of the Constitution |
|---|
| Preamble Articles of the Constitution |
| Amendments to the Constitution |
| Bill of Rights I · II · III · IV · V VI · VII · VIII · IX · X Subsequent Amendments |
|
|
The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. This clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made by the United States with foreign nations as "the Supreme Law of the Land" (using modern capitalization). The text of Article VI, Clause 2, establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, both in the Federal courts and in all of the State courts, mandating that all state judges shall uphold them, even if there are state laws or state constitutions that conflict with the powers of the Federal government. (Note that the word "shall" is used here and in the language of the law, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)
Contents |
[edit] Text
| “ | This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. | ” |
[edit] The Fourteenth Amendment
Striking similarities exist between the supremacy clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
Both of these are parts of the Federal Constitution that define the Federal Government's supremacy over the States. A difference between the two, however, is that whereas the Supremacy Clause deals with the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, the Fourteenth Amendment deals with the relationships among the Federal Government, the States, and the citizens of the United States, with emphasis being placed upon the rights of the citizens.
[edit] Supreme Court and lower Federal Court interpretations of the Supremacy Clause
One of the earliest examples of the Supreme Court's ruling that a State law violated the Federal Constitution under its Supremacy Clause came in the landmark legal case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Maryland could not place taxes on the Second Bank of the United States. This ruling established the principle that the states could not tax the Federal Government in any regard and to any amount.
In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, it is illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals acting under federal laws.
The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to come in effect only when the Federal Government has acted in a given field. In the case of Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[1]
- Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
- "...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."
In a similar opinion, Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1992), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held (on the issue of injunctions and remediations) that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a Federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme." In this case, prisoners suing for tort damages appealed to Federal remediation law, suggesting that in their case Federal law applied (though it might not in every instance of remediation). The Court of Appeals agreed, and it granted compensation wherever Federal laws were applicable.
In 1922, the Court applied the Supremacy Clause to international treaties, holding in the case of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), that the Federal government's ability to make treaties is supreme over any State concerns that such treaties might abrogate states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.
The Federal Supreme Court has also held that only specific, "unmistakable" acts of Congress may be held to trigger the Supremacy Clause. The State of Montana had imposed a 30 percent tax on most sub-bituminous coal mined there. The Commonwealth Edison Company and other utility companies argued, in part, that the Montana tax "frustrated" the broad goals of the national energy policy. However in the case of Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 (1981), the Supreme Court disagreed. Any appeal to claims about "national policy," the Court said, were insufficient to overturn a State law under the Supremacy Clause unless "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained."[2]
However, in the case of California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989), the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressedly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the State action. The Supreme Court further found in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000), that even when a State law is not in direct conflict with a Federal law, the State law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives."[3] Congress need not expressly assert any preemption over State laws either, because (the Supreme Court said) Congress may implicitly assume this preemption under the Constitution.[4]
[edit] Some Concerns about the Supremacy Clause
There has been some debate as to whether or not some of the basic principles of the United States Constitution, such as the country's system of government or Bill of Rights, could be affected by an ambitious treaty. In the 1950s, a Constitutional Amendment known as the Bricker Amendment was proposed in response to such fears. This proposed amendment would have mandated that all American treaties shall not conflict with the manifest powers granted to the Federal Government.
Subsequent Federal court cases such as Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955), Diggs v. Schultz, 470 F.2d 461 (1972), and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) have, over the course of time, established in legal decisions most of the limitations that had been proposed by the Bricker Amendment.[5]
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ Dow Chemical Co. v. Exxon Corp., 139 F.3d 1470 (Fed Cir 1998).
- ^ Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609, 634, quoting Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142 (1963).
- ^ Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372-374.
- ^ Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 386-388.
- ^ Henkin, Louis. "U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker." American Journal of International Law. 89:2 (April 1995); Van Dervort, Thomas R. International Law and Organization: An Introduction. Santa Barbara, Calif.: SAGE Publications, 1997. ISBN 0761901892; O'Brien, John. International Law. Florence, Ky.: Routledge Cavendish, 2001. ISBN 1859416306
[edit] External links
Who's Supreme? The Supremacy Clause Smackdown by Brion McClanahan
