Okay...hope I understand this correctly.
Michigan just had proposal 2...to get rid of affirmative action...I believe it passed.
Ironically it was two U of Michigan cases that were just heard by the SC in 2003. A split decision...upholding for undergrad(and not for the law school)..I think..lol...on the basis that "diversity" in important to universities.
Now this proposal 2...again how can they pass a state law when it was just upheld by the SC...again...wouldn't that trump their state law b/c of the supremacy clause.
One other that I can think of is the marjuana laws in California....they've(Ca) passed laws that are clearly against federal laws....so how does that work?
2006-11-09 08:29:03 · 5 answers · asked by kissmybum 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The Supreme Court did not hold that affirmative action was mandatory, and no federal that that I've seen makes it mandatory.
What the Supreme Court said was that public schools/colleges could use race as a factor in admissions, provided that race was not the primary factor, and provided that the results of the admissions process did not unduly or unfairly exclude any one race.
So, the Supreme Court said that race could be used, which allows for some types of affirmative action. But since it did not require race to be used, affirmative action is still optional.
As far as the California situation, federal drug laws make pot illegal to possess or distribute. It's a controlled substance. So, even if the possession or distribution is for medical reasons, it's still possession or distribution and thus in violation of federal law.
What the states did is say that there are certain situations where the state will not prosecute someone for drug use, namely if it is by perscription for valid medical reasons. So, the state said that the state allows it, but the federal govt said that the federal govt does not allow it. The net result is that it is only a federal crime, as opposed to being both a federal crime and a state crime.
2006-11-09 08:33:29 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
State vs Federal law...in terms of the California law. State officials instruct state law enforcement to enforce only the state laws.
You can still get busted in California if it is a Federal Agency.
You will be tried in a Federal Court.
As for Affirmative Action, I don't know how it would work for that, but would like to know.
2006-11-09 08:33:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
nicely in line with Article 6 of the form, rules made with the help of the federal government are the final rules of the land. that is prevalent through fact the Supremacy Clause interior the form. In different words, Federal rules override state rules. If the final courtroom Justices uphold the form, then Jan Brewer's immigration regulation is unconstitutional. Brewer had to make being illegally here in this united states a state crime so as that the regulation enforcement companies in Arizona ought to mete out unfair and unjust punishments their way. If her regulation isn't overturn, then this united states might have a severe difficulty on their hands. we can not have states ignoring Federal rules.
2016-11-23 13:05:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A Government of the people by the people. Why shouldn't the people living in those states make their own decisions?
2006-11-09 08:33:50 · answer #4 · answered by dakota29575 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
just had to say nice picture of a bum ;)
(had to say it )
2006-11-09 16:43:04 · answer #5 · answered by tordor111 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋