This decision of 1842 seems pretty conclusive:
(see below link)
From the page:
"The ruling upheld the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution in which Federal Laws take precedence over state laws when regulating the same activity. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution is one major avenue for the national government to exercise its authority over states. From the 1930s New Deal era through the 1970s the federal government significantly grew by increasingly regulating many facets of life. By the 1980s states' rights proponents began to reverse the trend. Debates over federal controls continued into the late 1990s focused on proposed national health care reforms.
At the center of issues intensively debated by the founders of the United States was federalism, the distribution of power between the federal and state governments. Dispute over the degree of centralization of political power in the United States highlighted by debates between Alexander Hamilton and JamesMadison led to formation of the first political parties in the nation. As a result, the Supremacy Clause was written into Article IV of the Constitution providing the primary basis for the federal government's power over states. The article states the "acts of the Federal Government are operational as supreme law throughout the Union . . . enforceable in all courts of the land. Thestates have no power to impede, burden, or in any manner control the operation of" federal law."
no, federal laws always override state constitutions
Yes, federal law can override a state constitution if there is a conflict between the two. Federal law, as established by the U.S. Constitution, is considered the supreme law of the land and takes precedence over state laws or constitutions.
No. Because of the tendency of the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the federal government as well as the "supremacy clause" (Federal Laws override state laws if there is a conflict) in the constitution, the federal government exercises more authority and overall power than state governments.
If a state were able to override a federal law, it would create a situation of legal conflict and confusion. This could lead to inconsistencies in how laws are applied within the country, potentially undermining the effectiveness of the federal legal system and threatening national unity.
No. Because of the tendency of the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the federal government as well as the "supremacy clause" (Federal Laws override state laws if there is a conflict) in the constitution, the federal government exercises more authority and overall power than state governments.
No. Because of the tendency of the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the federal government as well as the "supremacy clause" (Federal Laws override state laws if there is a conflict) in the constitution, the federal government exercises more authority and overall power than state governments.
supremacy clause- federal law ranks supreme over state laws
Of course not. We have enough trouble maintaining reasonable laws throughout the land. We would have utter chaos if companies could override any state or federal law just by writing a policy. Local, state and federal laws always trump a company's policies.
They didn't the states have the choice to follow the federal's laws or override them
when federal and state laws conflict, federal laws take precedence so long as they are judged to be constitutional
Yes, a state law can be overridden by a federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws.
A state can create laws that are stricter than federal law, as long as there is no conflict, or the Constitution specifically reserves the right to the Federal government.