I’m not saying that I agree with you, but we are speaking in parallel, at the least. 
I don’t think that what you are saying applies in this situation. If a federal law is passed specifically allowing merchants to impose a minimum purchase requirement of up to $10 on credit card purchases, New Jersey cannot say nope, the minimum purchase requirement may not exceed $5, or $0.
Maybe a lawyer will be by to correct me…
I have a friend who lost some toes for just that reason.
[QUOTE=Sario]
Federal law is considered the higher law, but often states will pass laws that are stricter than the corresponding federal law. In those cases the stricter law will carry despite it being the lower law.
[/QUOTE]
Lawyer here, but don’t know what Sario was referring to. Doesn’t seem to reflect what I understand about the supremacy clause of Article 6, or the 10th Amendment.
Not coming up with any ready examples of a valid “stricter, lower” law. But Con law was several decades ago and I’m far from an expert.
And there are people (mostly men) that think the vulva is the vagina.
Literally every blue law, at least in modern times?
Federal law says you only have to meet some loose restrictions to be able to buy alcohol. State or county law says you have to meet these much, much stricter restrictions, up to and including alcohol being banned outright. The state (or county, or local) law is stricter than Federal law, as it incorporates all of the restrictions in the Federal law and adds a few of its own.
To bring this around a bit, the Federal law allows the store to sell alcohol on Sundays. The local law does not. If the store sells alcohol on Sundays, the people involved in the store are guilty and subject to punishment, and cannot successfully appeal to the Federal law which does not prohibit what they did.
Have to ask- what do you mean by this? That Labrador itself doesn’t have a capital, but Newfoundland and Labrador does?
Which federal law regulates the sale of alcohol at the retail level?
Yeah. I think I see what you are trying to say Derleth, but I don’t see it that way. I repeat, I’m not an expert, and my vocabulary is lacking.
I don’t see the local rules as “stricter” than the federal. Instead, they legislate different aspects of the same topic. They certainly are not in conflict. If so, federal would trump. I assume a great many federal laws set up a framework within which the states can fill in the specifics - with considerable leeway so long as they don’t contravene the federal rules. I suspect federal legislation generally delegates to the federal bureaucracy for application and enforcement - which in turn delegates to and coordinates with the locals.
If the feds said the minimum drinking age was 21, I don’t think a state could get away with making it 18. In other instances, states can choose to act differently than the feds, but forego federal $ if they choose to. But if the feds say minimum drinking age is 21 and states can administer reasonable rules that don’t conflict. Yeah, from your viewpoint the local rules are more detailed. But from my view, I don’t see them as stricter.
Of course, I guess it might come down to what your definition of “is” is! 
I did some more research, and found that not all of them contain abrasives now, and they are beginning to use OxiClean type compounds in place of chlorine bleach. But I still think these factors are the main reasons why some objects are labeled as not dishwasher safe.
To add to things I myself didn’t know, I just learned yesterday that the Roman Empire didn’t begin until roughly the time of Christ, in 27 BC. Before that it was the Roman Republic. I had just always assumed the Roman Empire had existed from several hundred years BC.
Right. So if the feds say that merchants can set a minimum purchase of $10 to use a credit card, can NJ say no, there isn’t a minimum; merchants must accept credit cards for every purchase, even 25 cents?
I wouldn’t think so.
Most people are not aware how fixed molecules are. They might have made H2O in middle school out of styrofoam balls, but the sticks were pretty wimpy in models. Therefore, people do not have a complete understanding of for example enantiomers. Amino acids come in two forms. One set is useless or harmful to us.
You can’t just interconvert them by boiling for example. They would fall apart before one would change to the other with just energy. Chemical change, usually to a D,L mixture is possible.
And you’re shocked that many people don’t know this?
That’s a new one on me. I’ve never used a credit card in NJ, but I have passed through the state and could have. Didn’t know any state had a law like that. Is that becoming common among states now?
No non-chemistry major should be expected or required to know this sort of thing.
But a state could set it at 23. Compare with the highway speed limit. When the feds set it at 55, a state could set it at 50 if they wanted to, but not 60. In the language of the federal legislation, there would be an indicator as to whether the fed limit was at the upper or lower end, but not both.
First, I agree with Velocity that this the existence of enantiomers is something which I wouldn’t expect most people to know, even those who studied it in high school (it was required both for the Pure and Applied Sciences and Life Sciences tracks, under the version of the national curriculum I took). I’ve met quite a few people for whom it was very important (as they were Life Sciences), and who knew some of the substances they work with were L and others D but who couldn’t tell you what the letters stood for, much less what their implications are. But tutoring taught me how badly they often were taught…
And second and donning my theoretician’s hat, I’ll point out that I’ve often been surprised by how many chemists think that molecules are completely rigid and/or that a molecule’s ground state is its only state.
Could the state? For the 3d time, I’m no expert. But I could see that a higher-than-fed age or lower-than-fed speed limit could be argued to interfere w/ interstate commerce.
As I recall, the past experience was w/ states that didn’t want to reduce their speed limits to the fed mandated 55.
As a general rule, state courts apply state law, fed courts fed. (Well, in some situations, fed law dictates the use of state law, but no reason to overly complicate things.). If you felt your fed-guaranteed rights were infringed by a state law, you could sue the state in fed court. Of course, no guarantee of the result in any particular case…
Where is a know-it-all legal pedant like Bricker when you need one? 
I would make expect a college educated person to make an intelligent guess. The point here is that the typical person does not really believe molecules are 3D objects the same way things we deal with on our scale are.
I would expect that most people, even college educated ones, don’t often think about molecules, therefore, don’t believe them to be 3D objects. In fact, in my experience, when I’ve brought up obscure information, the most common reaction I’ve gotten from my peers is “Nobody cares.”
So unless you’re in a roomful of chemists, I’d expect that to be the default reaction.
I’m surprised that people think it’s okay to drive just off your port stern on the freeway. In such a way that they aren’t passing you, but their headlights reflect in your side mirror. Or worse, they drive right next to you, so if something catastrophic happens (a tire blows), one car will plow into the other, causing a major accident.