If the US goverment passes a law to be obeyed in every state (“federal law”?), and one state do not follow it, what happens?
For instance, say that there is a legislation that on every highway in the USA the speed limit should be 80 miles per hour, and in a few years Alabama still hasn’t changed its signs and just disregards this; or that you may only sell alcoholic beverages to citizens who are 21 years old in the US and a couple of states obviously don’t give a crap.
Or is the states of America so autonomous that such issues never arise? Or, on the other hand, would that be like a cry for independence, that is, too serious to even consider?
I’m not American (and English is not my native language, but hopefully the question is clear enough) so I don’t know if these things happens all the time or if it simply never happens (which still makes the question kind of valid, though), or if things work in such a way that the question is too uneducated to even answer. But in any case, don’t hesitate to enlighten me.
The reason I’m wondering is that I live in EU and it seems that every time one country shows reluctance to an agreement the only solution I’ve ever heard of is “fine them!” (Doesn’t happen often, but I admit also in this I’m rather far from an expert.) And that don’t seem to be a very good solution. So I would like to hear from the experts on federations (I know EU is not a federation… yet.)
In the end, the federal government wins out. It can be through use of force, but more likely states are so heavily dependent on the federal government for financial resources force isn’t needed.
The federal government decided that there should be a nationwide drinking age at 21. States that held out were denied federal road improvement money until they came into line. Every state now has a drinking age of 21.
In the case of speed limits, the Federal Government could withhold federal funds for construction or maintenance of highways. This is a strong incentive for states to comply. There are various other punitive strategies the federal government can use short of force.
In extreme cases, such as the desegregation battles with states in the 1950s, the Federal Government has taken such measures as federalizing the Arkansas National Guard in order to enforce its wishes.
I’m assuming that constitutionally the federal government couldn’t impose speed limits on the states, but isn’t the withholding of federal funds for non-compliance an endrun around the Constitution and couldn’t it be challenged in the courts?
See South Dakota v. Dole, 482 U.S. 203 (1987) which ruled the withholding of highway funds constitutional to encourage the states to move to a drinking age of 21.
My state (Montana) is trying to buck federal law by allowing for the manufacture and sale of unregistered firearms for use within the state’s border, but not outside the state. The feds claim that current firearm regulation applies to all states under all circumstances, and that what Montana is trying to do is illegal under federal law. The state believes there is a loophole in the federal law. I expect some kind of showdown in federal court in which the state loses to the Federal Government.
In some areas the feds control as a matter of law. However, in other areas, the feds have no legal power over the states. The feds can’t mandate speed limits or drinking ages. Instead, the feds make federal funds for highways, etc., contingent upon states doing whatever the feds want the states to do. In these cases, the state makes the choice of whether it wants to comply and get federal money, or don’t comply and take no federal money. It’s essentially feds bribing states but it’s constitutional.
Medical marijuana laws there seems to be a stand off.
The Feds outlawed marijuana, 16 states allow medicinal use. So far, the Feds do not appear to be interested in cracking down on it. (Bigger fish to fry, I guess.)
The OP must first understand the relationship of the states to the federal government, which is not the same as the nations to the EU. Nations belonging to the EU are sovereign nations. The sovereignty of the states in the USA is limited in that the federal government is the ultimate sovereign. However, the federal government (Congress) can pass only those laws which our Constitution grants it under section 8. Those powers not enumerated are reserved to the states. The problem is that under the “Commerce Clause,” Congress can pass a multitude of laws that at first glance do not involve interstate commerce. SCOTUS has in the past broadly interpreted that clause, but recent cases, with the present justices, are reining in that power somewhat. Firearms come within this orbit because parts must use interstate travel. Speed limits on federal highways also are within Congress’ power to control as federal highways are interstate highways. The federal government cannot tell a state, however, the speed limits on local roads, but, as noted, can withhold funding for improvements to those roads when a state asks for funds for such improvements.
Montana cannot pass a law contra to federal law for firearms used just within the state, as parts to manufacture the firearm probably came from various states. If the Montana law would apply only to firearms made entirely within the state, then Congress could not affect Montana’s law under the Commerce Clause, but possibly other federal authority may come into play. The preamble to the Constitution gives power to the federal government to promote the general welfare. If a law is deemed necessary for the general welfare of the nation, Congress would have the power to enact it. The Bill of Rights states that those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. But some powers are implied to be specifically granted.
The first situation is if the state is directly violating a law made under the enumerated powers of Congress or in violation of the Constitution (see Article I Section 10 and the legal doctrine of incorporation of the Bill of Rights). For example, Brown ruled that segregation in education was a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendment and therefore the Feds could take direct action. I assume the US Marshals could have gone to California and force Governor Brown to hand over Dennis Banks when he refused the extradiction request from South Dakota (Article IV Section 2).
So if a state refused to send their National Guard to the border to control crossings, the Feds could compel the state to send them since Congress is authorized to call up the militia to enforce Federal law under Article I Section 8. I expect that a state violating AI, S8 would be a very rare occurence and that what is more common is a state doing something directly prohibited or not doing something it is required to do under the Constitution.
The second situation is if the Feds want to regulate something outside their jurisdiction (enumerated powers). I call this legislation by pursestrings and it was upheld in South Dakota v. Dole. Basically, under the Tax & Spend Clause of the Constitution, the Feds can tie federal funds to implementing federal regulations so that if a state does not follow the regulations, they lose funding. So if a state lowers the drinking age to 18, Washington DC cannot send federal marshals to enforce a federal drinking age of 21 (in fact, such a federal law would be unconstitutional as it violates the 10th Amendment) but it can reduce funds provided there is a public welfare issue (in this case it was drunk driving), a national interest (the regulation applied to all states) and a relationship between the funding and the regulation (contraversially SCOTUS ruled highway funds are related to drunk driving).
So if a state were to violate NCLB (No Child Left Behind), they may lose funding but they cannot be forced to comply since education is not enumerated as a Federal power but if they violate IDEA (special education law), the Feds could step in directly because EAHCA (the original name) is a direct result of Brown (think child with a disability instead of child of color).
But didn’t Texas v. White use the preamble (specifically “to form a more perfect union”) to justify its ruling that succession is unconstitutional? As for barbitu8’s statement
The Feds bust marijuana shops all the time. If you mean witholding highway funds, you know they get all the tax money from those shops right? It may be cheaper and they may even make money by letting them slide
The feds hold the ultimate card. They can always deny federal funds. It’s easier said than done.
Early this year Texas suffered devastating fires. They was no federal disaster declaration. Houston did not get one of the retiring Space Shuttles, which by all accounts, they should have received. Scuttlebutt has it the Texas Republican/Tea Party attitude played a large role in both issues. Yeah, you can make a case both are underhanded political games. The fact remains if you anger the Feds, they can, and will, do something. The Supremacy Clause is a mighty big stick.
But see U.S. v. Lopez,514 U.S. 549 (1995), which ruled that Congress did not have the power to forbid gun possession near schools.
No, this control is entirely by bribery. “Interstate highway” is merely a signage convention administered by a private group (AASHTO). Those highways are owned by the states or tollway authorities.
There are examples a lot earlier than this, that kind of were the first test cases of situations where states wanted to interpret the language of the Articles their own way, such as in the nullification crisis, where South Carolina just decided that it didn’t want to enforce tariffs, and the federal government was prepared to use the militia to throw violators in jail.
The Interstate highway federal funding scheme always sounded like extortion to me. “Say, that’s a pretty nice set of roads you have there. It’d be a shame if something… happened… to them.” Something like losing all the money to maintain them if they disobey the Feds.
I think you meant “secession.” I also knew that the federal government must provide for the general welfare, but did not cite the specific empowerment. Nothing in the Constitution is meaningless, legally or otherwise; else it would not be in there.