User:Bt202/Sandbox

This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs
This page was last edited by Fayenatic london (talk | contribs) 4 years ago. (Update timer)

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request an experienced editor review it for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

Community Workforce Agreements are agreements between local Building Trades Unions and contractors, project owners, or other construction users.

History

“

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

”

Provisions

Striking similarities exist between the supremacy clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

On the one hand, both are parts of the US Constitution that define the federal government's rule over the States. One difference, however, is that whereas the supremacy clause deals with the relationship between the federal government and the states, the fourteenth amendment deals with the relationship among the federal government, states, and citizens, with emphasis being placed upon the citizens.

Private Agreements

One of the earliest examples of the Supreme Court ruling that a state law violated the constitution under the Supremacy Clause came in the landmark McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), wherein the court ruled that the state of Maryland could not tax the Second Bank of the United States, establishing the principle that the states could not tax the federal government.

In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled:

"A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute."

In effect, this means that a state law will be found violating the supremacy clause when either of two conditions exists:^[1]

compliance with both federal and state law is impossible
"...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."

In a similar opinion, Stone v. City and County of San Francisco (968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992)), the court held on the issue of injunction and remediation, "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme." In this case, prisoners suing for tort damages appealed to federal remediation law, suggesting that in their case, federal law applied (though it might not in every instance of remediation). The court agreed and granted compensation where federal law was applicable.

PGE. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190 (1983) is a Supreme Court case that lays out a variety of tests that may be used to determine if state statutes are superseded or preempted by federal legislation. In this case, California blocked the building of Atomic Energy facilities. PGE contested that the State's injuntion was preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act. It was held that the Act does indeed hold supremacy over California, but the State's specific barring of the plants did not violate the Act, or specifically, because the state stoped the plants because of economic, rather than safety reasons, the Act was not violated.

The Massachusetts Burma Law was a law enacted in 1996 by the Massachusetts legislature limiting state entities from purchasing services from companies doing business with Myanmar (Burma) for moral reasons. The NFTC filed suit against then-Massachusetts Secretary of Administration and Finance, Stephen Crosby, in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000), arguing that the Massachusetts law infringed upon the federal government's foreign affairs and foreign commerce powers, and that it was already pre-empted by federal law. Massachusetts was also charged with violating the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The NFTC won the case with U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter ruling that "the state Act is preempted, and its application unconstitutional, under the Supremacy Clause." The law was thus nullified.

Public Agreements

There has been some debate as to whether or not some of the basic principles of the United States Constitution, such as the country's system of government or Bill of Rights, could be affected by an ambitious treaty.

In the 1950s, a constitutional amendment known as the Bricker Amendment was proposed in response to such fears; it would have mandated that all US treaties not conflict with the existing powers granted to the US government. Subsequent legal precedents, notably Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955) and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), ultimately established some of the limitations sought by the Bricker Amendment.^{[clarification needed]}^{[citation needed]}

References

^ (Dow Chem. Co. v. Exxon Corp. (Fed Cir 1998))

Category:Constitution of the United States Category:Legal history of the United States

[1] (Dow Chem. Co. v. Exxon Corp. (Fed Cir 1998))

[1]