It's called the Doctrine of Nullification. The theory states that a state has the right to nullify or declare void any Federal law that it deems to be unconstitutional. Although there is no clause in the US Constitution stating who has the right to declare a Federal law to be unconstitutional, precedent had given that power to the US Supreme Court alone. However since there is no direct Constitutional clause (only indirectly through the Supremacy Clause), the right of the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of the constitutionality of a law was highly controversial. Nullification was a hot political issue on the first half of the 19th century. The controversy surrounding nullification indirectly led to the American Civil War. After the Civil War was over, nullification ceased to be a major political issue though it has arisen several times since then and has never entirely gone away.
Federal. The dual government is set up in such a way that if federal and state are in conflict, federal trumps. The order is as follows: Federal constitution Federal statute Federal case law Federal regulations and administrative law State constitution State statute State case law State regulations and administrative law
Federal supremacy establishes that federal law supercedes all state and local law. Federal supremacy establishes that federal law supercedes all state and local law.
Protests and riots, and a flooded federal legal system (conscription is a federal law not a state law).
The Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was a federal law that boosted the drinking age from 18 to 21.
The Federal laws take precedance over any state laws.
They really can't reject federal law. The federal law is over state law. Some states who have done this loose federal money and have been taken to court. The Supreme Court has ruled over several cases.
Nullification.
State law can be more detailed than federal law, but cannot conflict with federal law. Therefore, a state law cannot determine that a federal law is invalid. The state would have to, instead challenge the federal law as an unconstitutional intrusion on state rights.
Most are proposed by the local governments. Others, by the state or federal government, depending on the extension of the proposed law. Then, the local, state or federal legislative body approves or rejects such law and then it is executed by the local executive branch.
The state law is declared void. States cannot pass a law that conflicts with a Federal Law or the US Constitution. The law could also be illegal based on the state's constitution.
No, federal law and state law are not the same. Federal law applies to the entire country, while state law only applies within the boundaries of a specific state.
Federal law takes precedence over state law.
A state law is created by the state and only pertains to that single state. A federal law is created by the national government and is enforced throughout the whole nation. Federal law overrides state law.
federal law preempts state regulations when a federal law regulates that particular subject.
Federal. The dual government is set up in such a way that if federal and state are in conflict, federal trumps. The order is as follows: Federal constitution Federal statute Federal case law Federal regulations and administrative law State constitution State statute State case law State regulations and administrative law
The short answer is that the United States Constitution is the law of the land, and any law, including state law, that is not consistent with the US Constitution is superseded by the US Constitution. There is something called the Supremacy Clause, which means that all inconsistencies between federal and state law must be resolved in favor of federal law, but then the lawyers and courts argue whether the federal law in question was intended to supersede and preempt, or to just add to state law. Is the state law really and truly inconsistent, or just a little. :) If state law says you can manufacture WIDGET A, for example, and federal law says you cannot, then federal law will control, because that is a direct conflict. But if state law says you can manufacture Widget A, and federal law says you can manufacture Widgets A, B and C, but you must comply with certain requirements, or you must manufacture them all together but not individually, then state law is not superseded...it is just ... clarified a bit, if you get my meaning.
No, federal law supersedes state constitutions.