While not a US citizen, It is my understanding that where federal law has jurisdiction, it is supreme, state law would need to change to meet the federal requirements. Yes, the Federal Law trumps the state law.
The idea that says a state can cancel a federal law is the idea of nullification.The idea of nullification essentially says that individual states can cancel certain laws passed by the federal government if that state views the law as unconstitutional. Needless to say, this was an unsuccessful attempt by the states to disobey federal laws imposed by the government.
It says that federal laws takes precedence over a state law. This is known as the supremacy clause.
In the United States, federal law supercedes state law, so if something is illegal under federal law, it doesn't matter what the state says. However, if federal law doesn't say anything about it, then the state is free to impose whatever laws it wants.
depends on who gives tha test.its against federal law to have it in ur system.but not state.(in california).
"throw it all in the ocean" Federal government
Federal law exists to ensure certain interests that are important to the entire country are in place. There is no pragmatic way one set of laws could govern the entire country, so each State is allowed to enact laws that it deems fit to address its own needs. However, no State can be allowed to have a law that trumps Federal law or disregards Federal law. For example, if the Federal government decides that fully automatic weapons should be banned across the board, it could not allow a single State to allow fully automatic weapons. That being said, State laws can be more restrictive that Federal law but they cannot be less restrictive. Let's say the Federal government says cell phone calls while driving is a national safety issue and bans it on all interstates. Florida could enact a law that says all cell phone use (calls and text) is illegal.
The emissions information label under the hood will say if federal, California, etc.
In the US Constitution, the Article VI, Section 2, Supremacy Clause declares federal law supersedes state law if the two are in conflict, but it's inaccurate to say the "clause is used to determine if a state law conflicts with federal law." Any part of the Constitution that provides guidelines for a specific law, and applies equally to the state and federal government, may be used to make that determination; the Supremacy Clause simply states if a state law conflicts with federal law, the federal law prevails.
Possession of marijuana is a federal crime. It is therefore against the law in the entire US. California and a few other states have introduced medical marijuana or have decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, but since federal law trumps state law, it is still a crime everywhere. However, the federal government limits enforcement of drug crimes to only the large distributors. It is unlikely that a person possessing less than an ounce of MJ will be charged federally, so in a state that allows or does not enforce it, people can easily get away with it.
he says that they are extra smart
a national economy and a strong federal government
Some would say federalism, or nationalism. Many, but not all, of the Marshall Court's decisions upheld the supremacy of federal and constitutional law over state law.