Discuss the supremacy clause and its effects on State and Local Government?
923759
I'll give you enough info to get started.\n\nThe Supremacy Clause is Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the law 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 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."\n\nThis effectively prevents state and local governments from exercising powers that are specifically reserved to the federal government, and restrictions conferred by the Constitution upon the States are enforcable, even if it would contradict state/local law.\n\nThis clause, combined with the rest of the constitution, and amendments, places limits on state and local governments, such as the 14th Amendment, Section 1:\n"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
430036
Federal Law supercedes state law if they conflict.  However states can create and pass additional laws as long as the are not in violation with our constitutional rights.  That is why different states have different variations of the same basic law.
909948
Only one: the Fourteenth Amendment.\n\n"No state shall .... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."\n\nThere are some other amendments which expanded sufferage, but none of them mention equality (even though the equal right to vote is the obvious point of those other amendments).
905791
Sometimes local or State laws are put to "referendum".  That means the voters have a direct relationship as to whether the law gets passed or not.  Otherwise the only thing you can do is write to your representatives and tell them how you feel about a particular law or issue and they vote to their conscience, perhaps taking the citizen's opinions into account.
136309
You’re asking a great deal, whole sections of libraries hold many books just on this one subject and you could spend a lifetime studying the nuances associated with this Amendment.  For example, It states. . . . . \n\n“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”\n\nThis has roots in the Articles of Confederation which state in Article II. . . . \n\n“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”\n\nThese were not simply words to the Founders, during the convention (4 December 1787), James Wilson (Delegate of Pennsylvania) said. . . . \n\n“ . . . Sir, I think there is another subject with regard to which this Constitution deserves approbation.  I mean the accuracy with which the line is drawn between the powers of the general government and those of the particular state governments.  We have heard some general observations, on this subject, from the gentlemen who conduct the opposition.  They have asserted that these powers are unlimited and defined.  They have already been answered by my honorable colleague, (Mr. M’Kean) therefore I shall not enter into an explanation.  But is is not pretended that the line is drawn with mathematical precision: the inaccuracy of the language must, to a certain degree, prevent the accomplishment of such desire.  Whoever views the matter in a true light, will see that the powers are as minutely enumerated and defined as was possible, and will also discover that the general clause, against which so much exception is taken, is nothing more than was necessary to render effectual the particular powers that are granted. . . ”\nContinuing he stated, “ . . . But let us suppose – and the supposition is very easy in the minds of the gentlemen on the other side – that there is some difficulty in ascertaining where the true line lies.  Are we therefore thrown into despair?  Are disputes between the general government and the state governments to be necessarily the consequence of inaccuracy? . . . ”\n\nMy point is that the Founders were both concerned and not of the same mind as to the consequences of the Constitution in the relationship between the general government and the several State governments.  This resulted in a wide difference as to the need of a Bill of Rights including the 10th Article.\n\nIt is also interesting to note that at the time of the convention, all States (colonies) had existing constitutions and these constitutions provided incentive to the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Here with one example, from The Declaration of Rights for the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania. . . . . \n\n“Chapter I.  That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable Rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defining life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”\n\nEven after ratification differences arose and these few following selections from United States Supreme Court decisions demonstrate that reality.\n\nFrom the opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court case, Gordon v. United States [1864].  “The reservation to the States respectively can only mean the reservation of the rights of sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which had not parted from by that instrument.”\n\nAnd then in the case of Kansas v. Colorado [1907].  “This Amendment disclosed the widespread fear that the National Government might, under the pressure of a supposed general warfare, attempt to exercise powers which had not been granted.  With equal determination the framers intended that no such assumption should eve
378017
Two clauses of the First Amendment concern the relationship of government to religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.  Although the clauses were intended by the framers to serve common values, there is some tension between the two.  For example, some people might suggest that providing a military chaplain for troops stationed overseas violates the Establishment Clause, while others might suggest that failing to provide a chaplain violates the Free Exercise Clause rights of the same troops.  I will, however, postpone discussion of how the two clauses ought to be reconciled, and begin with an examination of the meaning of the Establishment Clause. \nAt an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding.  It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general.  Proponents of a narrow interpretation of the clause point out that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer and voted to apportion federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands.  On the other hand, persons seeing a far broader meaning in the clause point to writings by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison suggesting the need to establish "a wall of separation" between church and state. \n\nSupreme Court interpretation of the Establishment Clause does not begin until 1947 in Everson v Board of Education.  Voting 5 to 4, the Court upheld a state law that reimbursed parents for the cost of busing their children to parochial schools.  (It was clear from the various opinions in Everson that if the state had reimbursed the parochial schools for the cost of providing the transportation, that it would have been found to violate the Establishment Clause.)  Although in his majority opinion Justice Black wrote of the "wall of separation" that the Constitution maintains between church and state, Black viewed the aid in question of serving the state's secular interest in getting kids "safely and expeditiously" to schools.  The case is noteworthy for its extensive discussion of the purposes of the Establishment Clause, and for the fact that all nine justices agree that the clause was intended to do far more than merely prohibit the establishment of a state religion. \n\nSubsequent decisions make clear that a majority of justices on the Supreme Court view "the wall" separating church and state more as a shifting, porous barrier. Small factual differences in cases often produce different outcomes.  For example, in 1948, the Court found that the practice of inviting religious instructors into public schools to give optional religious instruction violates the Establishment Clause.  Then, in the 1952 case of Zorach v Clauson, the Court upheld the practice of giving public school students "release time" so that they could attend religious programs in churches in synagogues.  Writing for the Court in Zorach, Justice Douglas said the Constitution does not require "callous indifference to religion." \n\nThe question of school-sponsored prayer has, of course, proven highly controversial.  In the landmark case of Engel v Vitale in 1962, the Court ruled that New York's practice of beginning school days with a prayer drafted by school officials violated the Establishment Clause.  This is the case, the Court said, whether or not students are given the option of not participating in the prayer.  Following Engel, the Court has faced a whole series of prayer-related cases in the public school context raising issues such a prayer in special circumstances (e.g., graduation ceremonies), periods for silent meditation or silent prayer, and student-initiated prayer.
502682
Unlimited (no term limits)\n\n9\n\nTo resolve specific federal questions or civil rights issues raised through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.(cmhurley64 gave you the duties of a STATE Supreme Court)\n\nThe First 10 Amendments to the Constitution
1155931
The constitution gives states the right to govern elections, and as all things at the state level, laws regarding elections are passed by the state legislature. The laws are enforced by the Division of Elections of the Department of State.
265775
I have not yet gone through such decision from the Supreme Court, can you help me to get a copy of short judgment over it. I understand that such powers and authorities are fixed and delegated by the parliament.\n\nHowever in my personal opinion the national government must restrain itsself from intervening in the matters of State / Provincial and Local Governments except in the the matters those may jeopardize unity of a nation in the central monetary areas and defense of borders as well as foreign affairs.
324382
Unless someone can shift the focus (or Congress can pass a compromise bill), Border Security and the Iraq occupation (both terrorism issues) will probably dominate the political landscape. \n\nSomething *has* been done about health care and social security in the most recent term; making it more of a local issue. If people in the district are extremely for or against the recent reforms, it will play locally. Abortion will also have play locally; but unless there's a ramp-up in the anti-abortion forces, or another outbreak of violence surrounding clinics it's a secondary issue.\n\nNobody in Washington wants to talk about corruption, lobbyist reform, the growing deficit or taxes; so it's an issue for the opposition.\n\nAs a minister, the biggest issue for me is gay marriage. To me, a government prohibition on gay marriage is equivalent to saying "People born on Tuesday can't take Holy Communion."
896956
Federal trump state. State trumps local. Constitution trumps statute. Statute trumps case law.\n\nSo, from the top -- federal constitutional text, then US Supreme Court interpreting federal constitution, then federal statute, then other federal case law, then state constitution, etc....\n\nAs far as one state relative to another, neither is binding on the other.
121212
Federal branch takes care of business, it also seems to rule over those gray areas of government.\n\nState government rules the state.
267210
The Supreme Court reviews all acts,laws,and statutes,and case opinions both with the federal and state in the American legal system.If the Court feels that the situation is unconstitutional it has the power to void it out.The Courts decision is final and stands supreme.Read the Bill of Rights (the Constitution). There are only a few to read.If you don't have access to a book do a search on the internet.Good luck and happy hunting.You can download e-books to help you with other similar projects in this field.I use to hate learning about government but, now that I am older it is more interesting to learn.Especially now that I know that I can have a positive say in this world as to how it is run since ,government effects everybody sooner or later.We have to think about our future and making it better.I too am studying government except mine is with criminal justice and wanting to help teens.
202837
check out local laws passed
188737
Local governments are cities, counties, townships, school districts, fire districts, etc.  Anything less than the state level that can make laws and levy taxes.
835633
The Warren Court (1953–1969) made several rulings expanding the application of the Constitution to civil liberties, leading a considerable change in the scope of substantive due process. It held that segregation was unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education) in public (ie, tax supported) schooling, that the Constitution protects a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut), that schools cannot sponsor or impose official prayer on students (Engel v. Vitale) nor mandatory Bible readings either (Abington School District v. Schempp), dramatically increased the scope of the doctrine of incorporation (Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona), found that the Fifth Amendment (Bolling v. Sharpe) required equal protection of the laws to all, and held that the Constitution requires active compliance (Gideon v. Wainwright).\n\nThe Burger Court (1969–1986) ruled that abortion was included in the Constitutionally protected right to privacy (Roe v. Wade), made several somewhat contradictory rulings on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo), and ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional as it violated the cruel and unusual prohibition in the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution (Furman v. Georgia), but later held that it was not unconstitutional after all if done in particular ways (Gregg v. Georgia).
714224
I think here in Michigan the biggest issue is whether we are going to allow a person to buy the office of Governor. I think restoring checks and balance to the federal government is also important. Dove hunting has become an issue as well as equal rights.