if a state law contadicts a federal law, what prevails?
The stricter law prevails.
For instance, Michigan law guarantees special ed services from birth onward. U.S. law guarantees these services starting at age 3. So -- in Michigan, all handicapped children are eligible to receive services as soon as they are born.
This is true unless it is a federal law forbidding something. For instance, federal law prohibits states from posting the Ten Commandments on government property. Some states have tried to do this and have failed in court.
Thanks for clarifying this, Guru. In this case, apparently the courts have ruled that the Constitution takes precedence over federal or state laws.
When a conflict arises between a state law and a federal law in the United States, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides guidance on which law should prevail. According to this clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2, federal law is considered the supreme law of the land.
The Supremacy Clause establishes that if there is a direct conflict between a federal law and a state law, the federal law will take precedence and prevail over the state law. This means that the state law must yield or be invalidated to the extent of the conflict.
The Supremacy Clause is based on the principle that the federal government possesses certain powers that are superior to those of individual states. These powers, which are enumerated in the Constitution, include areas such as interstate commerce, foreign policy, and the regulation of national security. States, on the other hand, have the authority to regulate matters within their own jurisdiction that are not expressly delegated to the federal government.
So, in the event of a contradiction between these laws, federal law will generally supersede state law based on the Supremacy Clause. However, it is important to note that there can be situations where both federal and state laws can coexist or be applied simultaneously, as long as there is no direct conflict between the two.