Do state right trump federal law?
The reason I ask is some blow hard thinks it does, when it comes to Hazelton Pennsylvania, if that is the case then why was the three strikes laws not thrown out as unconstitutional?
Answers:
First of all -- the Hazelton laws dealing with immigration that were thrown out had nothing to do with three strikes laws.
The Hazelton immigration laws were thrown out because they were preempted by federal immigration laws. Congress explicitly wrote into the federal immigration laws that they preempted any state laws on the same topic.
It's a constitutional issue, because Article VI is what gives federal laws the ability to preempt state laws.
But that only happens if (1) the federal law explicitly says that it preempts state laws, or (2) it is impossible to follow both state and federal laws at the same time.
Nothing in the three strikes laws regarding state punishments for state crimes contradicts any federal laws on the subject. The fact that there aren't federal laws on the subject is just one reason they don't conflict. But absent a direct conflict, there is no preemption.
And "activist" just means the judge did something you didn't like. In this case, the judge read the federal law that said "state's cannot do this", then read the constitution which said "federal law is the supreme law of the land" and added 1+1 to get 2.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDIT: Well, my brother served in the Marines and my Dad (who is 82) was in the Navy in WW2 -- so I doubt they'll be on opposite sides. Both might try to kill me {grin} but that's a different issue, and wouldn't have to wait for a civil war.
But I don't see how this relates to your question -- the Hazelton issue was purely a matter of the town doing something that it knew was illegal, and getting caught at it.
Either we respect the rule of law, and follow the laws, or we lose any claim to be upset if someone else also breaks the law. I fail to see how Hazelton was justified in breaking federal immigration law, in order to go after other people who had also broken federal immigration law. Two wrongs don't cancel each other out.
According to the U.S. Constitution, federal law always take precedence over conflicting state law.
The Civil War settled this.
====edit==
To elaborate on what I said earlier, I was not saying that we were headed for ANOTHER civil war, since the issue of states rights was already settled by the LAST civil war.
I am not familiar with Hazelton Pennsylvania, or what is going on there, but I do know that article 1, section 8, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate immigration. The Supreme Court has time and time again said that this is of necessary, an EXCLUSIVE right of congress, and that no state can pass its own immigration law, as this would result in chaos.
“The Congress shall have Power … To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization … throughout the United States”.
[Article 1 of the United States Constitution]
The two have nothing to do with eachother. Federal law applies to certain areas of law under the Reserve Powers Clause and the Supremecy clause. What that means is that if the power is specifically reserved to the Federal Government, the state cannot change or alter the Federal law. In the immigration situation in Hazelton, the city tried to create it's own immigration law. This is unconstitutional because immigration is specfically under the control of the Federal Governement. I have a theory on how Hazelton can get some Federal relief, but I cant state it here because I am working on a class action.
As for the three strikes rule, each state has the right to legislate it's own criminal laws, penalties and the like. Challenges to the state's three strikes law have to be made on a state by state basis. The Federal government's powers do not supercede state legislation in criminal law. Now if someone is successful in having a three strikes law ruled unconstitutional in the Supreme Court, that case would be precedent and would apply to all similar three strikes laws on the books.
Many three strikes rules are being found to be unconstitutional. I believe there was a recent ruling to that effect. The thing is when this happens, states generally try to write legislation that gets around the Supreme Court decision.
The point is though, the Hazelton ruling does not apply the way you want it to.
Any "states right" comes from the Constitution, which itself is the supreme federal law.
In 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall of the Supreme Court of the United States declared in the case of McCullough vs. Maryland that "The power to tax is the power to destroy," and that although the Consitution did not *directly* declare federal law to supercede state law, Marshall pointed out that if it were not so, then the Constitution would be meaningless.
Judge James M. Munley struck down Hazelton's city ordinance because the federal government has given sole right to control immigration. There's also a sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona who's arrested *hundreds* undocumented aliens under a state law prohibiting smuggling aliens into the country, but there hasn't been even *one* case that has come before a jury yet, so it's only a matter of time until some judge smacks him up aside his xenophobic head with a legal 2x4. (Not that it would be a new experience for him.)
Pennsylvania’s three-strikes law applies only to violent crimes under Pennsylvania law. It provides staggered sentences of 5 years, 10 years and then 25 years to life for each strike against a defendant. There's no conflict between state and federal law here. The defendant is breaking state laws which are constitutional. It's presumably not cruel and unusual to give longer sentences to repeat offenders; rather it is sorta like saying, "if sending someone to prison doesn't rehabilitate him, then we will send someone to prison to isolate him from his victims instead."
Holy **** how did you figure that out. In my opinion you are 100% correct. The way I see it is there was a united States of America. The origional ones had more control than today. The IRS and Federal grants eroded the autonomy of the State, creating the automiton we see today. Slavery, yes I do agree with that heavy handed proclomation. But NO the States as I see what the Fore Fathers fore saw was autonimy from the rest. Alowing them to do as they see fit. But wait, don't you want our highway funding or school funding, or Homeland Security $'s. This land is not about freedom any longer it's all the money.
The simplest answer I can think of to your question is this; Federal law is superior to state law. However, just because a federal law exists does not mean that the federal government actually has jurisdiction on that particular issue.
More detail...
Unfortunately, few members of Congress actually uphold their oath to the Constitution. They pass laws because they "like" them and because it will aid their re-election campaigns. Very few actually apply a "is this Constitutional?" test before voting. The Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government. All powers not granted the federal government are given to the states - The 10th Amendment says it best;
"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."
So under a strict interpretation, if you can't find authority in the Constitution given to the feds, it is given to the states. In this case, just because a federal law may be passed, it does not mean that it supersedes the constitutional authority of the state law.
Specifically, the Constitution grants the feds authority over only 3 crimes; piracy, treason, and counterfitting.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: