Talk:Supremacy Clause

message: Why is this not in a separate sections below, 
"Nullification is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.[2]"
It makes no sense to have someone that is really a separate topic being shoved in there.  I'm guessing this is an edit done by Nullification activists, not someone actually familiar with or caring about Wikipedia. 
There isn't an issue with it being in the article, later on in the details, but it has no business being in the opening section and is really vearing off topic. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is Nullification in the opening paragraphs of the Supremacy Clause?

message: Three sentences in the introduction to this article are a bit misleading:
*"However, federal statutes and treaties are supreme only if they do not contravene the Constitution."
*"In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law, but when federal law conflicts with the Constitution that law is null and void."
*"No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution."
While the first two statements are technically correct, they are ambiguous and open to interpretation. Who is meant to determine whether or not a law is constitutional? A consequence of leaving these statements ambiguous leaves a foot in the door for nullification or sovereign citizens, which seems to be an issue with this article. The source for the first one cited the Heritage Foundation, and the citation included nothing about constitutionality questions anyway. Finally, federal statutes are treated as supreme whether or not they conflict with the constitution; they're only null and void when the judiciary determines they are unconstitutional.
The third statement is a moral statement. Federal and state governments can pass as many unconstitutional laws as they wish, and sometimes they might even stick around for a while. In other words, they don't have to stay within constitutional bounds. Jim Crow laws started in the 1870s, were found to be constitutional, then found to be unconstitutional almost 100 years later. Here's my own moral statement: a constitution is only as good as the people entrusted to uphold it.
The judiciary is the only legal authority in the United States which can determine the constitutionality of federal law. If statements about constitutionality are included in the introduction, I think they should be precise. Otherwise, they should be removed. MasterofTofu (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading statements about constitutionality

message: There should be a more general introductory paragraph referring to the fact that it's a common legal concept or the article should be split into two: supremacy clause vs. supremacy clause in the US constitution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.120.33 (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The German Basic law has a supremacy clause too

message: This article should really be expanded to include references to how Marshall interpreted the Supremacy Clause (i.e. Gibbons v. Ogden or McCullough v. Maryland); additionally, perhaps its application in modern politics would be relevant (i.e. Medical Marijuana in California or Oregon's Death with Dignity Act).
Also, there are no links, citations, references, or any sort of source credit given. Links are helpful for those who would like "further readings." Sources and citations are necessary to give credit to those to whom the ideas belong to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.226.56 (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion suggestion: Marshall Court + Role in Modern Politics

message: ... since the Roberts court, giving rein to Clarence Thomas, has apparently discarded stare decisis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.145.35 (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk of what has been "ultimately established" is a bit premature ...

message: Just off the top of my head, you could argue that In re Neagle expanded it to include executive orders.  There are a number of cases that would work in this favor.Shrekums 16:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion suggestion: Important Cases which have expanded the Supremacy Clause

message: Where does it say this. Can you verify this claim: "Since the constitution states that a treaty has supremacy over "any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding". You may be right, but I have never read the Constitution as saying this or heard that it states this. J. D. Hunt (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Also, were can I verify this claim: "However, the treaty-making power of the U.S. Government is broader than the law making power of Congress."  Other than the mentioned Supremme Court case, where is this mentioned in the Constitution? J. D. Hunt (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It says that treaties have supremacy over state constitutions. The text specifically refers to "the Constitution or Laws of any state", which means state constitutions can never override treaties enacted by the President and Senate. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I've added a citation establishing this point, and therefore removed the "dubious" tag.  If you really want, I can provide others.  Theokrat (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaty over Constitution question

message: I removed the following block of text from the page added by an IP user.
I seems like random ranting.  Maybe some of it does in the article?  For someone who's interested in rooting around in it and organizing: 
However if one will simply read the text of the so-called Supremacy clause it becomes obvious that federal laws do not always supercede state laws nor do treaties automatically override the constituiton of the united states or any particular state. The supremacy clause states that all federal laws made IN PURSUANCE OF the united states constituiton are the supreme law of the land. So if the federal government passes a law that violates the 2nd amendment then that law is NOT in pursuance of the constituiton and therefore not the supreme law of the land. Or if the Federal government passes a law that violates the 4th amendment or the 10th amendment or any other part of the constituion then those laws are NOT the supreme law of the land PER the Supremacy clause. As for Treaties notice it does not say that anything in the U.S. constituion "not withstanding" only state constitutions. Further examination reveals that the "Supremacy Clause" reads treaties passed under the AUTHORITY of the United States. The United States gets its authority from the U.S. Constituion. The U.S. Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to deny gun ownership. So it stands to reason that if the U.S. Signs a treaty that is meant to end gun ownership it is NOT the supreme law of the land because the Constituiton does not grant the Federal government the authority To ban gun ownership and so such a treaty would not be made under the authority of the united states as outlined in the supremacy clause and therefore would not be the supreme law of the land. 
 
Piratejosh85 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: The introduction seams like the phrase "in pursuance thereof" is replaced with parliamentary supremacy. That is, the way it is worded implies that any law is equally supreme to the constitution, which seams strange considering the document rambles on with restrictions to law. Then again, I am merely a layman, and if the academic consensus is such there is nothing more for me to say.108.65.0.169 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pursuance of nothing?

message: The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.
This statement is really a political statement and doesn't help explain the Supremacy Clause in my layman's opinion.  In other words, this statement is saying that if Congress passes constitutional laws then they are constitutional, and if Congress passes unconstitutional laws then they are unconstituional.  It doesn't say anything and it looks really dumb.  It appears to be a political statements supporting an agenda.Bobberino12 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You would be surprised how often the mistake is made to think that: "the Supremacy Clause means that whatever congress passes invalidates state laws that conflict with it."  That is wrong, it is only those laws that are themselves constitutional that invalidate conflicting state laws.  Its a very common mistake that is good for people to realize.  --Obsidi (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The second paragraph is superfluous and should be removed. 

message: If the U.S. were to ratify an international treaty that said that "This treaty shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding", U.S. courts would rule that to be unconstitutional; they would uphold the U.S. Constitution as being of higher authority than the treaty. For a treaty to become of higher authority than any provision in the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. would have to pass a constitutional amendment to that effect.
Why, then, would the U.S. Constitution be of higher authority than anything in a state constitution, if the states merely ratified the U.S. Constitution rather than passing amendments to their state constitutions to make the U.S. Constitution of higher authority than their state constitutions? Ferberson (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality of the supremacy clause 

message: Why is the 14th amendment section here?  There is nothing about the 14th amendment privileges and immunities clause that has anything to do with the supremacy clause.  --Obsidi (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  14 amendment section