# Dissent in Garza v. Idaho (2019)

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [December 13, 2024, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618 "2024-12-13T20:52:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\
**Post date:** [June 3, 2025, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/41 "2025-06-03T02:13:40Z")

</div>

> [@KCB615](#):
>
> It’s irked me for years that a federal regulation can overrule a state constitution. I get supremacy, but that just doesn’t seem correct to me.

Didn’t the Feds try to make a treaty on migratory birds to overrules state hunting laws since a treaty has the same Supremacy as the Constitution.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\
**Post date:** [June 3, 2025, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/42 "2025-06-03T02:31:17Z")

</div>

Yes. It’s been in force since 1916.

> **[Migratory Bird Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty)**
>
> The Migratory Bird Treaty or Convention is an environmental treaty between Canada and the United States. It was originally signed on 16 August 1916 by the United States and the United Kingdom (representing Canada), entered into force on 6 December 1916 and has since been amended several times.
> Whereas, many species of birds in the course of their annual migrations traverse certain parts of the Dominion of Canada and the United States; and
> Whereas, many of these species are of great value as a ...

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\
**Post date:** [June 3, 2025, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618/43 "2025-06-03T11:55:50Z")

</div>

I suppose the sort of scenario I’m trying to think of might be a commerce clause or treaty - if the feds have a law saying “you can shoot up to 5 migratory birds without requiring a license” or “you can fish 10lb of seawater fish without requiring a license” then that _might_ override state law saying otherwise? But most laws say the opposite, like “shooting more than 5 birds in a season requires a federal permit”. The implication being that either (a) the state can add their own permit requirements or (b) the feds have taken jurisdiction abd the state has no right to regulate this aspect of bird business?

The bill of rghts asigns rights - free speech, ~~bare~~ bear arms - but can a federal law assign a right other than these? The only exception I can think of is a treaty, but that seems to be the federal government taking or asserting jurisdiction.

What I am thinking of, is if the federal government for example passed a law asserting the “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground” as a federal law, would that overrule state homicide laws that infringe on that?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dissent-in-garza-v-idaho-2019/1011618.md?page=2)