State vs Federal law question re: "opting" out of the Patriot Act?

Question

I actually have two questions re: State vs Federal law.

This one is with the Pariot Act...which some cities have decided to "opt" out of...can they do that?...or is that more of a gesture showing discontent with the law?

If it came down to it...wouldn't federal trump any state law or statute....due to the supremacy clause.

Answer 1

Federal law does override/preempt state law, under the Supremacy Clause.

But the Patriot Act only grants authority to share information that otherwise exists between law enforcement agencies, and to grant access to information that is otherwise kept.

What some cities have started doing is refusing to collect the information, which there was no legal requirement that they collect. Because the information doesn't exist, it cannot be taken by the federal govt under the Patriot Act. So, if the federal govt wants that private information, they have to go get it themselves.

In other words, the cities had to choose between spying on their residents, in the name of security, or backing off and not collecting some types of information. Some chose to back off, rather than contribute to the govt monitoring. It's a gutsy choice, and it's tragic that the federal govt forced them to make it.

Answer 2

That's right, in general a state could not refuse to follow a mandate from the Act. I don't know what "opt out" provisions you're talking about. There may be some funding possibilities that a state can get if they agree to certain provisions, or some cities may have just said "although the federal government chooses these investigative techniques, our state law enforcement agents will not use them." That would be "federalism," and states may do that.

Answer 3

When the supreme court ruled segregation illegal all the Alabama guardsmen in the world couldn't stop the National Guard.

Answer 4

what does this mean