States Rights and Federal Law.

Okay, well recently, I have heard a few stories concerning legalization of powerful weapons (Montana) and marijuana legalization (California) and various others in various states.

My first question is, how can they make these laws? You might say, the 10th amendment. Well, to that I say, Federal Law > State Law.

My second is, if Federal Law always trumps State Law, then why are these ideas even being proposed? Even if they are passed the Federal Government will be in the right to persecute anyone in these states under Federal Law and the State Courts must bend to the will of Federal Law. (Correct me if I am wrong)

And my third is, What good are states rights if they can't even opt themselves out of Federal Law? Perhaps for individual laws of their own on top of Federal Law, bu that's probably the only thing.

If someone could offer some insight into this issue that would be helpful.

Well, I do know that when it comes to medical marijuana, federal law does not trump state's law on the matter.

But yes, it is ridiculous that they propose such things. State laws can never deviate from federal law. Which is too bad in some cases.

State laws are just there to go into more detail about this and that. They are just more in-depth versions(each state's being different) of the fed's, I suppose. Kind of how I see it.

Well, I'm assuming that when it comes to issues like this, the Federal government could trump the state and local laws, but in the interest of state's rights may choose not to. Technically this means that the Federal government is allowing the states to break the law. To some it could be considered a travesty of justice, but personally, as long as they don't do something insane like legalizing homicide I really don't mind.

Below lies your answer, if you can read between the lines.

Massachusetts sued the U.S. government on Wednesday, challenging the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
The state of Massachusetts says the Defense of Marriage Act denies same-sex couples essential rights.

The state of Massachusetts says the Defense of Marriage Act denies same-sex couples essential rights.

"We're taking this action today because, first, we believe that [the Defense of Marriage Act] directly interferes with Massachusetts' long-standing sovereign authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents," Attorney General Martha Coakley said Wednesday afternoon.

"Massachusetts has a single category of married persons, and we view all married persons equally and identically," she said.

"DOMA divides that category into two distinct and unequal classes of marriage."

The lawsuit argues that the act, which became law in 1996, denies same-sex couples essential rights and protections, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments.

"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the state wrote in the lawsuit, which was filed Wednesday in federal court.

Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, said that about 16,000 same-sex couples have been married there since 2004, when it began issuing marriage licenses. Since that time, the lawsuit said, "the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state. "

The state is challenging Section 3 of the law, which defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and a spouse as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Before the act, the lawsuit argues, defining marital status was the prerogative of the states.

The law "eviscerated more than 200 years of federal government deference to the states with respect to defining marriage," it said.

The lawsuit also argues that the law forces Massachusetts to treat same-sex married couples differently from heterosexual married couples, particularly through determining who qualifies for the state's Medicaid program, known as MassHealth, and whether a same-sex spouse of a veteran can be buried in a veteran cemetery.

"But for DOMA, married individuals in same-sex relationships in the commonwealth would receive the same status, obligations, responsibilities, rights, and protections as married individuals in different-sex relationships under local, state, and federal laws," the lawsuit said.

The defendants named in the lawsuit include the Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki and the United States itself.

Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said the department will review the case but noted that President Obama supports the legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

In March, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders -- the same Boston-based group that successfully argued in 2003 for same-sex marriage rights in Massachusetts -- also sued the federal government over Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Besides Massachusetts, three other states recognize same-sex marriages: Connecticut, Maine, and Iowa. Vermont and New Hampshire will join their company when same-sex marriages become legal later this year and early next year.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/08/mas...uit/index.html

I came across this article, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2369758.shtml

Apparently the DEA doesn't recognize California's Medical Marijuana laws.

Zaius, that story you posted is exactly what I am talking about, the Federal Law is overriding the state law which is interfering with the states desire to create it's own laws.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Zaius, that story you posted is exactly what I am talking about, the Federal Law is overriding the state law which is interfering with the states desire to create it's own laws.

That's why the Massachusetts State Government is suing the United States Government in Federal Court.

I googled "legalization of powerful weapons (Montana)" and got nothing (**** this thread came up 2nd). So I'm wondering what a "powerful" weapon is.

Originally Posted by KillerKat55

I googled "legalization of powerful weapons (Montana)" and got nothing (**** this thread came up 2nd). So I'm wondering what a "powerful" weapon is.

That was just a generalization by me to encompass something which I am not familiar with the details about. Just look up Montana State's Rights or Montana Gun Control.