[objclxt]

It is not as simple as federal law 'trumping' state law - congress enacting a law specifically to override a state would be problematic, even if constitutionally solid.

You are not considering the implications of congress interfering in a relatively minor state matter when it refuses to legislate on more pressing state/federal issues (gay marriage, legalising cannabis, etc).

[nickff]

There would be no problem with Congress overriding the state laws. Federal laws always have precedence over state laws, and the federal congress has specific authorization to regulate trade among the several states in the commerce clause of the constitution.[1] Congress has the constitutional authority to ban substances such as cannabis, but not to compel states to allow them.[2] Congress has no authority to interfere with family law, which has always been a matter for the states.[3]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

[bmelton]

> Federal laws always have precedence over state laws

Be careful with the word 'always'. If a federal law were unconstitutional, and an equivalent state law were not, then clearly it would not trump the state law.

Similarly, despite the modern interpretations of the Commerce Clause, there are Constitutionally imposed limits on federal authority, and they're prescribed a very narrow set of privileges by the Constitution. Depending on the law and its execution, we could very well see a state exercising its rights trump the Commerce Clause. Gary Marbut has fairly carefully crafted such a challenge with his "Montana Buckeroo" rifle which is expressly designed, built and sold only within the confines of Montana, specifically to challenge the Commerce Clause's authority of its manufacture.

That said, he's got some 80-odd years of precedent to overcome, but there may be a quorum that much of that precedent is bad precedent, though it's still a gamble as to whether or not that matters.

[nickff]

The "always" comes from the fact that the federal law would have to be challenged, and it would "trump the state law" until the federal law is struck down (or at least until a preliminary injunction against the federal law has been granted).

While I personally agree with Mr. Marbut's interpretation of the commerce clause's limited scope, I think that the deck is stacked squarely against him, especially since Raich.[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

[pg1598]

"relatively minor state matter when it refuses to legislate when it refuses to legislate on more pressing state/federal issues (gay marriage, legalising cannabis, etc)."

I'm not sure if you're being serious or just completely ignorant about how bills are passed into law. Clearly, a Republican controlled House will not vote in favor of gay marriage or legalizing cannabis. Heck, almost every Democratic state hasn't even legalized cannabis and there are still a good number of Democratic states that haven't recognized gay marriage. Those won't pass the federal level any time soon.

"Minor" issues, by the way, are passed into law all the time because both houses can agree on the bill. Take the JOBS Act or the Pay Our Military Act for instance.