RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
No he is asking if a State or local authority can supersede Federal laws.
Only if the State or Federal law is legal... that is, Constitutional, itself.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that any law that is hostile to the Constitution, is null and void. So if a state govt or the Fed govt were to pass a law that violated the Constitution, that law would legally cease to exist, by what the Supreme Court has ruled.
So a city passing a law saying the Fed can't (say) infringe the right of the people in the city, to keep and bear arms, it cannot possibly be unconstitutional... since if the Fed were to do that, the Fed's law would go legally belly-up immediately according to the Supreme Court, and there would be no conflict.
No conflict? The feds losing power and there would be no conflict? While I agree with what you said, that line strikes me as awfully sophomoric.
He is also wrong. Anytime a State or local authority believes a Federal law Statute or act is Unconstitutional they must take it to Court. No Supreme Court ruling on another law Statute or act matters. Well except as case law for the current case.