The Supremacy Clause: A Constitutional Cornerstone Explained

The Supremacy Clause, a part of the United States Constitution, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme Law of the Land, thus taking precedence over any conflicting state laws. The Supremacy Clause was a response to the lack of a similar provision in the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1781 to 1789, and it played a significant role in establishing a robust role for the federal government in managing the nation's affairs during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The Supreme Court has applied the Supremacy Clause in various cases, such as Ware v. Hylton in 1796 and United States v. Schooner Peggy in 1801, reinforcing the principle that federal law takes precedence over state law.

Explore related products

The Supremacy Clause: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution (Reference Guides to the United States Constitution)

$95

The U.S. Constitution: Explained--Clause by Clause--for Every American Today

$9.97 $12

Georgia's Constitution and Government, 10th Edition

$14.36 $15.95

"Medical" marijuana, federal drug law, and the constitution’s supremacy clause

$22.99

Great Cases in Constitutional Law

$44 $47

The Constitution and Economic Regulation: Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment

$50.86 $62.99

The Supremacy Clause's role in federalism disputes

The Supremacy Clause is a part of the US Constitution and is among its most significant structural provisions. It establishes the Constitution and federal laws as the "supreme Law of the Land", taking precedence over any conflicting state laws or constitutions. This clause was included in the Constitution to address the lack of a similar provision in the Articles of Confederation, which led to federal statutes not binding state courts during the Confederation era.

The role of the Supremacy Clause in federalism disputes is to resolve conflicts between federal and state laws by prioritising federal law. This is based on the principle of federal supremacy, which holds that federal law prevails over state law in cases of conflict. The Supreme Court has relied on this clause throughout history to reinforce the authority of the federal government and manage the nation's affairs.

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the Supreme Court used the Supremacy Clause to establish a robust role for the federal government. During this period, the Court also embraced the doctrine of dual federalism, which maintained distinct and non-overlapping zones of constitutional authority for the federal government and the states. While this doctrine minimised conflicts between federal and state laws, the Supremacy Clause still played an explicit role in federalism disputes, with the Court applying it to reinforce the sharp division of federal and state powers.

In the early twentieth century, the Supreme Court developed a precursor to the doctrine of field preemption, which holds that federal legislation can implicitly prevent states from adopting laws on the same subject. Some of these early field-preemption decisions aggressively employed the doctrine, concluding that congressional action in certain fields automatically displaced all state laws in those areas. However, as broader legal and political trends evolved during the New Deal era of the 1930s and 1940s, the Court's focus shifted towards accommodating demands for a more active national government.

In modern times, the Supreme Court continues to recognise various ways in which federal statutes can displace or "preempt" state law. Federal statutes may include express preemption clauses that forbid states from enacting or enforcing certain types of laws. Even without express preemption clauses, federal statutes can still supersede conflicting directives of state law. These disputes often involve questions of statutory interpretation and the extent of Congress's power under the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause and the Treaty of Peace

The Supremacy Clause is a part of the US Constitution. It was ratified in 1788 and is considered a cornerstone of the country's federal political structure. The clause establishes the supremacy of federal law and assumes the priority of federal authority, as long as it is expressed in the Constitution. This means that federal statutes and treaties made under the authority of the United States are the "supreme Law of the Land".

The Supremacy Clause was a response to problems with the Articles of Confederation, which lacked a provision declaring federal law superior to state law. The Articles governed the United States from 1781 to 1789, and during this Confederation era, federal statutes did not bind state courts in the absence of state legislation implementing them.

The Supremacy Clause was also designed to address issues related to treaties, specifically the 1783 Treaty of Peace between the United States and Great Britain. This treaty, which served as the foundation stone of the new nation, included a provision (Article IV) that specified:

> "creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money, of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted."

However, several states enacted or retained debtor-relief laws that conflicted with this provision, leading to violations that threatened the peace. The Supremacy Clause was thus created to ensure that state courts would not apply state laws that conflicted with the Constitution or treaties made under the authority of the United States, such as the Treaty of Peace.

The wording of the Supremacy Clause, which covers treaties "made ... under the Authority of the United States" and those that "shall be made," was specifically intended to include pre-existing agreements like the Treaty of Peace. This clause unquestionably makes such treaties possible and enforceable as part of the "supreme Law of the Land."

The Supremacy Clause's role in the New Deal era

The Supremacy Clause, a part of the US Constitution, was included to address the lack of a similar provision in the Articles of Confederation, which were in effect from 1781 to 1789. The absence of such a clause meant that federal statutes did not supersede state laws, leading to political difficulties. The Supremacy Clause was added to the Constitution in 1788, establishing the supremacy of federal laws, regulations, and treaties over conflicting state laws. It is considered one of the most significant structural provisions of the Constitution.

During the New Deal era of the 1930s and 1940s, the Supreme Court's application of the Supremacy Clause evolved in response to broader legal and political trends. The Court acceded to demands for a more active national government, which aligned with the expansion of federal power during the New Deal era. This shift can be seen in cases such as the Gold Clause Cases, where the Court upheld the government's power to regulate money and abrogate contractual gold clauses.

The Supreme Court's early-twentieth-century decisions on field preemption, or the principle that federal legislation prevents states from adopting conflicting laws on the same subject, set a precedent for the New Deal era. However, the Court also narrowed the circumstances in which federal law displaced state law to maintain a balance between federal and state authority. This was a departure from the automatic field preemption seen in earlier cases.

The New Deal era saw several constitutional challenges, such as the railroad pension case and the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) case, which tested the delegation of legislative powers to the President. The Supreme Court's rulings during this time reflected a tension between federalism and nationalism, with the Court upholding New Deal legislation in some cases while striking down acts like the 1934 Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act on Fifth Amendment grounds.

In summary, the Supremacy Clause played a role in the New Deal era by providing a framework for resolving conflicts between federal and state laws. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the clause evolved to accommodate the expanded role of the national government during this period, shaping the balance of power between the federal and state authorities.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Confederate States of America

$14.99

Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$21.95 $29.99

Constitutional Politics: Essays on Constitution Making, Maintenance, and Change.

$33.48 $63

That Eminent Tribunal: Judicial Supremacy and the Constitution (New Forum Books Book 35)

$29.77 $47

Intention, Supremacy and the Theories of Judicial Review

$42.71 $61.99

Essentials Of The American Constitution: The Supreme Court and the Fundamental Law

$61.99 $61.99

The Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment

The Supremacy Clause, a part of the US Constitution, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land". This means that federal statutes take priority over any conflicting state laws. The Supremacy Clause is considered a cornerstone of the United States' federal political structure.

The Supremacy Clause is a response to the problems with the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1781 to 1789. The Articles lacked a provision declaring federal law to be superior to state law, which resulted in federal statutes not binding state courts in the absence of state legislation implementing them. The Supremacy Clause was introduced as part of the New Jersey Plan during the debate at the Philadelphia Convention in May 1787. It was first put up for motion by Luther Martin and passed unanimously. The final version of the Supremacy Clause states:

> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, on the other hand, states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution. It acts as a restraint on congressional power, ensuring that Congress can only exercise the powers granted to it by the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment recognises that the states retain a degree of sovereignty and that the federal government does not hold all governmental powers.

The Supremacy Clause in Ware v. Hylton

The Supremacy Clause, a part of the US Constitution, establishes that federal laws and treaties are the supreme law of the land. It was included in the Constitution as a response to the problems with the Articles of Confederation, which lacked a provision declaring federal law to be superior to state law. The Supremacy Clause was not a major source of disagreement at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 but did generate controversy during the debates over the Constitution's ratification.

Ware v. Hylton, a 1796 case, also known as the British Debt Case, was a decision by the US Supreme Court that upheld the supremacy of federal law and treaties over state law under the US Constitution. The case concerned a Virginia law that allowed debtors to British creditors to discharge their debts by paying into a state treasury under the law of sequestration. This law conflicted with the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which ended the Revolutionary War between the United States and Great Britain and provided that creditors of both countries should face no lawful impediment when recovering bona fide debts from one another.

The Supreme Court, in Ware v. Hylton, struck down the Virginia law on the grounds that it violated the Supremacy Clause. This was the first time the clause had been explicitly cited by the court. The Court held that the Treaty of Paris, ratified pursuant to the Constitution, had the force of domestic federal law and superseded the conflicting state law. The case is also notable for being argued by several prominent legal minds of the time, including John Marshall, who would later become Chief Justice of the Court.

Ware v. Hylton articulated the legal doctrine that would later be known as judicial review, which established the authority of federal courts to settle conflicts of law. The decision reinforced the principle that federal law prevailed over conflicting state law, a foundational principle applied by the Supreme Court throughout the nineteenth century. The case also highlighted the role of the Supremacy Clause in addressing federalism disputes, with the Court's application of the clause reinforcing a sharp division of federal and state powers during this era.

Frequently asked questions