Coexistence of Federal Law and State Law
Coexistence of Federal Law and State Law
An overview
Individuals and corporations are obligated to abide by the rules of the nation and the Rule of Law to conduct their operations. When a person is active in business, they need to grasp the legal environment they operate. People committed to being law-abiding citizens will, at some point, confront the inevitability of conflict that arises from their ordinary commercial interactions. The ability to navigate the legal system offers a roadmap that company owners and professionals may follow as they attempt to negotiate their commercial transactions.
Purpose of Research
An examination of company operators in the United States reveals that they operate inside a complicated legal framework, with various municipal, state, and federal laws giving direction. Using the cohabitation of federal and state law as a starting point, this study seeks to provide insight into navigating this complicated framework. It will also contribute to the corpus of scholarship on the issue by looking into other researchers’ viewpoints on the subject.
Review of the Literature
A study of the literature and numerous papers on the cohabitation of federal Law and state law reveals that some rules and doctrines strive to improve the seamless functioning of these two bodies of legislation and guarantee that they do not conflict with one another. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution, federal law is the highest law in the nation, and it takes precedence over all other state laws. According to the clause, “This Legislature, and the U.s. constitution which shall be made in Furtherance thereof; and all Treaty obligations made, or which shall be made, under the Jurisdiction of the United States, shall be the supreme Authority; and the Supreme court justices in every State shall be bound thereby, notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary” (U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2). According to this provision, federal Law is acknowledged as the supreme Law of the nation, giving birth to the idea of preemption (or supremacy).
When there is a dispute between state and federal law, the idea of preemption maintains that the federal Law always takes precedence over the problem. When a state enacts a rule that contradicts Federal Law, the regulation is declared to be unenforceable. A crucial role in establishing an orderly hierarchy in United States legal systems is played by the supremacy clause, which is included under article four of the United States Constitution. According to this hierarchy, the constitution is at the top of the list, followed by federal legislation such as legislative enactment and treaties that have been approved, and finally, state law. The supremacy clause tries to preserve cohabitation between state and federal law by guaranteeing that states do not enact legislation that is in conflict with or undermines the purposes of the United States government.
According to Stabile (2017), preemption theory is practical because it allows for the vertical distribution of decision-making and authority between the parties in control of the federal and state governments. Among the cases reviewed by the court was Cooper v. Aaron (1958), in which the court considered attempts made by states to guarantee that Little Rock’s Central High School did not become integrated. In its decision, the court underlined that states, courts, or the administration could not take such an action that was in clear violation of the constitution while also claiming to be in favor of the constitution at the same time. The court reaffirmed the importance of the federal constitution and laws over state laws and the fact that state law initiatives that conflict with federal laws are null and void and unlawful under the constitution.
According to Merriam (2017), preemption theory may be broken down into four distinct branches, each distinguished from the other by the two fundamental ideas of explicit and implicit preemption. As a starting point, the scholar demonstrates how to articulate preemption as displacing state law when the federal legislation is claimed to handle the contentious topic in question. However, implied preemption, often known as federal Law, can substitute state law based on regulation. Implied preemption may occur in either a conflicting area of state and federal law or in a field where federal Law encompasses the whole field and does not allow state legislation or regulation implementation.
The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution and the idea of preemption have allowed for the coexistence of federal and state law. The ramifications have been felt in every aspect of corporate operations and management. How these rules have had a role in and affected operations in the healthcare business are shown by Hodge and Corbett (2016). Several healthcare reforms, including those on safe housing, tobacco use, environmental dangers, and transportation, are shown to be vulnerable to invalidation when the theory of preemption is used, as shown by the academics in their research. Consequently, for the sake of coexistence between federal and state governments, the federal government has the authority to dispense with or negate state laws that contradict federal laws.
Another example is Pulsinelli (2014), who examines the copyright rules that protect digital performances and provides an explanation. The expert demonstrates how the federal government has adopted legislation that allows anyone who has a recording produced after 1972 to collect royalties when their sounds are broadcast on satellite radio or the internet. The Law, on the other hand, does not provide the same rights to persons who have a recording that was released before 1973. Even while some parties have sought these advantages via the courts, the researcher illustrates that others have sought the same protection through state legislation rather than going through the legal system. On the other hand, these activities have been preempted by the recently passed federal legislation. The attempts to get these rights also violate the Dormant Commerce Clause because they aim to interfere with interstate commerce, which the constitution prohibits. Attempting to find a solution via state law will not remedy desired.
In addition to regulating restricted drugs, other laws demonstrate how these two systems may coexist. Garvey (2021) demonstrates how, on the one hand, federal laws ban the use of narcotics and other restricted substances such as marijuana while, on the other hand, state laws allow for the use of marijuana. Although this law does not provide for any exceptions, numerous states have passed legislation that seeks to create a place for the use of medicinal marijuana. However, although the federal ban of marijuana enacted by Congress is lawful, federalism principles prevent the federal government from requiring states to implement these federal prohibitions on marijuana. State enforcement of federal laws is prohibited under the tenth amendment, which restricts the capacity of the federal government to compel states to enforce federal laws. The courts have dealt with the problem of marijuana differently than they have dealt with other issues because of the theory of preemption, which gives the federal government the upper hand. They regard the federal and state systems as representing two sovereign states with two different criminal activity and enforcement regimes. They consider the state and federal systems as reflecting two sovereigns with two distinct enforcement regimes. As a result, although dealing with marijuana may be prohibited under the federal system, it is allowed under the state-level system. The two systems are consequently able to coexist in this instance because of discretionary restriction on the part of the federal government, attempting to ensure that the few resources available are utilized and prioritized effectively. This guarantees some level of stability between the state and federal systems.
Practical Application of the literature
A review of the literature on the cohabitation of federal and state laws sheds insight into the differences and similarities between the two political systems. It gives insight for business professionals and practitioners on how laws are implemented, helping them better understand navigating the legal system. It influences their business operations as they understand how the system functions and the implications of this for their particular industry or profession.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the supremacy clause and the theory of preemption significantly impact and strengthen the cohabitation of federal and state law. According to these principles, federal law takes precedence over state law if there is a contradiction or conflict. Coexistence is enabled by a hierarchical structure in which federal Law is the uppermost and is always applied when there is a conflict between it and state law. However, due to the concepts of the federation, the federal government cannot compel a state to enact and execute federal laws in its jurisdiction. In situations where there is a discrepancy, such as the legalization of cannabis, the federal government has attempted to preserve stability by being discreet and allocating its resources according to the importance of the situation.
References
Garvey, T. (2021). CRS Report for Congress Medical Marijuana: The Supremacy Clause, Federalism, and the Interplay Between State and Federal Laws. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42398.pdf
Hodge, J. G., & Corbett, A. (2016). Legal Preemption and the Prevention of Chronic Conditions. Preventing Chronic Disease, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.160121
Pulsinelli, G. (2017). Happy Together? The Uneasy Coexistence of Federal and State Protection for Sound Recordings. Papers.ssrn.com. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2593182
Stabile. (2017). Federal Preemption in Television Antitrust: Jurisdiction, State v. Federal. Administrative Law. Preemption in Television Antitrust. Stanford Law Review, 13(3), 629. https://doi.org/10.2307/1226683
William, & Mary. (2016). Preemption as a Consistency Doctrine Preemption as a Consistency Doctrine. Bill of Rights Journal William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 25(3), 3. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1815&context=wmborj