How can conflict between the state and federal governments be resolved in the future?
Answers:
the same way they have in the past.
how the law pertained to that day....
They go on Donald Trump's new Apprentice show and compete.
the supreme court has the final say in state v fed arguments.
although they tend to stay away from issues that are deemed "states rights" as long as the issue in question does not in anyway violate the constitution. if that is the case then "states rights" are quietly shown the door.
for the most part states have free reign to do more or less as they please. using federal law as a guide they regulate business and taxes within their borders. if it gets too out of hand and lobbyists are able to get involved, then the feds slap around the states. over the past 30 years, some states have tried to tighten up environmental laws and employment laws only to have the feds come in and put an end to it, as the feds are constitutionally allowed.
also, the feds like to rear their ugly head into matters that states come up with that do not go with the current administrations POV (ie gay rights and abortion) then members of the administration will huff and puff until they get what they want, and even if they do it can be and will most likely be challenged in court.
which brings us full circle. the powers of the state and the powers of the federal government are defined by the constitution and all disputes there in are decided in the courts with the supreme court is the ultimate arbitrator having the absolute final say on the matter.
Such conflict is healthy. That was the way the federal constitution was crafted.
It is in great part the tension between the states and the federal gov't which helps to maintain the liberties we so often associate with american life. Each helps to serve as a check against the uncontrolled expansion of the other. Most of all, the existence of the states helps to guarantee that, to the greatest extent possible, legislative control remains local, where democracy can be most effective.
A good example is the "REAL ID Act", a federal law passed by George Bush which attempts to create a de facto national identity card. It would have suceeded completely had it not been for the existence of the state legislatures, many of which immediately passed laws refusing to participate in the federal program. Local control of democracy preserves rights.
On the other side of the same coin, the existence of the federal government allows us to act as one nation when facing foreign threats or issues which concern more than one state. Imagine how life would be if the american states had no single currency, for example!
It is the tension between these 2 very legitimate aims that characterizes and assists in the continuing struggle to maintain an effective democracy.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: