Supremacy Clause

Supremacy Clause Importance

Why did they bother putting that phrase in the Constitution? It may seem obvious today that federal laws take precedence over state laws, but at the time, it wasn't so obvious. In fact, it was the subject of major debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 when Congress came together to write the Constitution.

Problems under the Articles of Confederation

The basis for the Supremacy Clause goes back to the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were passed during the Revolutionary War and provided the first framework for the United States Government. At the time, the colonies knew that they wanted to work together to fight for independence from England. Each state had its own government, economy, and agenda, so it wasn't clear how they would work together to form a new country.

After only a few years, the Articles of Confederation were falling apart. Even though they agreed to come together to form a new country, each state still wanted to do its own thing. Congress was left with a mountain of debt from the Revolutionary War but no way to pay it. The Articles of Confederation didn't give Congress the power to tax states - it could request money from the states, but not require it.

There were also border disputes and fights over who would control land to the west. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress didn't have much power to mediate these disputes or enforce decisions. Under the Articles, the federal government had very little power, which ultimately led to the creation of the Constitution.

Supremacy Clause in Constitution

The problems in the Articles of Confederation are what led to the creation of the Constitution. One of the major issues was the power dynamic between the state and federal governments.

Constitutional Convention

In 1787 (just six years after the ratification of the Articles of Confederation), Congress met together to make a new constitution to address the issues in the Articles that were threatening to pull the country apart. Even though they understood that the Articles had major problems, the delegates were far from unified in what the Constitution should say about the relationship between the state and federal governments.

Federalism and Antifederalism

After the Constitution went to states for ratification, delegates broke into two main camps: the federalists and the antifederalists. The federalists wanted a strong central government to unite the country. They felt that the disputes between the states were so numerous that the federal government needed to be stronger than the state governments in order to mediate.

On the other hand, the antifederalists did not want a strong central government. They favored preserving the authority of state governments and didn't want a federal government that was strong enough to abuse its power.

The Brutus Papers

As you can imagine, the antifederalists did not like the Supremacy Clause. They feared that the federal government would use it to interfere with state governments. The Brutus papers (a series of essays that described the antifederalist viewpoint) said that with the Supremacy Clause, Congress will "possess absolute and uncontrollable power." It went on to say that "it appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments... and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void."

The Federalist Papers

The federalists dismissed the antifederalists' fears, saying that Congress only had limited powers and that the rest were reserved for the state. The states had their realm of authority and Congress had theirs, so there shouldn't be too much conflict.

In Federalist No. 45, James Madison argued that the federal government's powers "are few and defined" while those reserved for the state governments are "numerous and indefinite" and "will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Alexander Hamilton argued that the Supremacy Clause restrains Congress's power. If Congress passed a law that was misaligned with the Constitution, it "would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution."

Ultimately, the clause remained and was ratified along with the rest of the Constitution in 1789.

The front page of the Federalist Papers, written mostly by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Source: Wikimedia Commons Author, Publius, CC-PD-Mark

McCulloch vs Maryland Supremacy Clause

Throughout United States history, there have been many instances of conflicts between the state and federal governments where the Supremacy Clause had to come into play. One of the earliest and most well-known is the case of McCulloch v. Maryland.

Congress created a national bank in 1790, citing its authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause. In 1816, the bank was re-chartered. Several states were upset with the new bank because they thought it interfered with their own state banks, so they decided to levy a state tax on the banks. They hoped that the high taxes would eventually force the national banks to close. One bank teller in Maryland, named McCulloch, refused to pay the tax, so the state sued him.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Under Justice Marshall, it ruled that Congress did have the authority to create the bank because of the Necessary and Proper Clause. It also cited the Supremacy Clause, saying that states did not have the authority to interfere with federal laws.

The Supreme Court's handwritten decision in 1819. Source: National Archives

Supremacy Clause Examples

The Supremacy Clause is very relevant today as more issues pop up highlighting the conflict between the state and federal governments.

Legalized Marijuana

The issue of legalizing recreational or medical marijuana presents an interesting case study for the relationship between the state and federal governments. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level, but several states have moved to legalize it. If federal law supersedes state law, why would states want to defy it and risk getting in trouble?

In some cases, the Supremacy Clause isn't as cut and dry as in others. Legalizing marijuana is one of those cases! Sometimes, especially when it comes to testing out policies based on new research or technology, it's easier to make changes at the state level than at the federal level. Under the Barack Obama administration, the federal government said it wouldn't enforce the federal drug laws in states where marijuana was legalized. However, because it's still illegal at the federal level, there are still problems for businesses that use national banks and have trouble securing loans. The federal government is intentionally restraining itself and allowing states to move forward with laws that conflict with federal law, even though they are violating the Supremacy Clause.

Same-Sex Marriage

One example where the federal government asserted its authority over states is the issue of same-sex marriage. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that banning marriage between same-sex was unconstitutional. However, prior to this ruling, the issue of marriage laws was left to the states. Many states had different laws around marriage, such as the age of consent and whether same-sex couples could get married. When the Supreme Court made its ruling, it meant that the decision applied to every single state, regardless of whether it had previously banned same-sex marriage.

Following the Supreme Court's decision to legalize gay marriage in all 50 states, the White House was lit to celebrate the pride flag. Source: Wikimedia Commons, Author, White House, Executive Office of the President Files