Can Federal Courts overrule North Carolina's Vote ID Constitutional Amendment?











up vote
8
down vote

favorite












North Carolina voters approved a Voter ID amendment to the state constitution; i assume that carries more weight than the Voter ID laws that have already been overturned, but can the Federal Court still take action?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
























    up vote
    8
    down vote

    favorite












    North Carolina voters approved a Voter ID amendment to the state constitution; i assume that carries more weight than the Voter ID laws that have already been overturned, but can the Federal Court still take action?










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      up vote
      8
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      8
      down vote

      favorite











      North Carolina voters approved a Voter ID amendment to the state constitution; i assume that carries more weight than the Voter ID laws that have already been overturned, but can the Federal Court still take action?










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      North Carolina voters approved a Voter ID amendment to the state constitution; i assume that carries more weight than the Voter ID laws that have already been overturned, but can the Federal Court still take action?







      united-states constitution voting amendment






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Nov 19 at 22:18









      WELZ

      2041112




      2041112






      New contributor




      Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked Nov 19 at 18:41









      Joe Swain

      442




      442




      New contributor




      Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Joe Swain is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          20
          down vote













          Yes. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution overrides any state law -- even a state constitutional amendment.



          Article 6, Paragraph 2 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 only thing that a state constitutional amendment accomplishes in the case of North Carolina is that it prohibits judges within the state from overruling it -- even on constitutional grounds (since an amendment is part of the constitution, you can't rule it to be unconstitutional).



          A Federal judge can still rule NC's amendment unconstitutional per the federal constitution's supremacy clause, but it must be a Federal judge that does it.





          Update:



          The comments this answer has generated indicate that I need to clarify my last statement. I was speaking of NC's voter ID amendment specifically.



          It needs to be said that there is no federal law, nor any federal court precedent that forbids voter ID laws in general. In fact, 17 states already have them. Therefore, NC's amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause by itself. NC's voter ID amendment only states that a photo ID is necessary to vote in person at a polling station. That's it. Nothing more.



          The purpose of the amendment is that it requires the state legislature to pass laws specifying the details of what types of ID are acceptable, what ways a person may go about getting one, etc.



          State judges may rule that certain provisions of laws passed by the legislature are unconstitutional federally, or might violate the Supremacy Clause due to federal law or precedent. But no judge on any state bench can rule the amendment itself to be unconstitutional. Basically, North Carolina can't not have some kind of photo ID requirement because of this amendment, and no state judge can change that.



          Only a federal judge, or an act of Congress dealing with the merits of voter ID as a concept can invalidate the amendment.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 12




            This is a nice answer, but the last paragraph is incorrect. A state judge can rule that a state law is invalid on federal constitutional grounds. This is true generally, but it is explicitly true in North Carolina because its constitution says that "no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion [of the federal constitution] can have any binding force." Any ruling by a state judge on a question of federal law (including the federal constitution) can be reviewed and potentially overturned by a federal court, of course.
            – phoog
            Nov 19 at 20:46








          • 3




            Furthermore, under the federal constitution, it is not even possible for a state to forbid its judges from considering federal questions, including federal constitutional questions: "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."
            – phoog
            Nov 19 at 21:27










          • Plus, if there are federal courts in NC, then technically the judges would be "judges within the state".
            – Acccumulation
            Nov 19 at 22:24






          • 2




            @Joshua it would be a failure of that judge to upload their oath to the federal constitution if the judge upheld a state law in contravention to the federal constitution (or even to a valid federal law or treaty). See article VI of the US Constitution
            – Viktor
            Nov 20 at 2:21






          • 2




            It occurs to me that I quoted the same passage from the constitution as does the answer, but I did not explain why the last statement does not follow from the quoted passage. The phrase "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" actually requires state judges to resolve conflicts between federal law and state law in favor of federal law.
            – phoog
            Nov 20 at 3:36













          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "475"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          Joe Swain is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35477%2fcan-federal-courts-overrule-north-carolinas-vote-id-constitutional-amendment%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          20
          down vote













          Yes. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution overrides any state law -- even a state constitutional amendment.



          Article 6, Paragraph 2 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 only thing that a state constitutional amendment accomplishes in the case of North Carolina is that it prohibits judges within the state from overruling it -- even on constitutional grounds (since an amendment is part of the constitution, you can't rule it to be unconstitutional).



          A Federal judge can still rule NC's amendment unconstitutional per the federal constitution's supremacy clause, but it must be a Federal judge that does it.





          Update:



          The comments this answer has generated indicate that I need to clarify my last statement. I was speaking of NC's voter ID amendment specifically.



          It needs to be said that there is no federal law, nor any federal court precedent that forbids voter ID laws in general. In fact, 17 states already have them. Therefore, NC's amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause by itself. NC's voter ID amendment only states that a photo ID is necessary to vote in person at a polling station. That's it. Nothing more.



          The purpose of the amendment is that it requires the state legislature to pass laws specifying the details of what types of ID are acceptable, what ways a person may go about getting one, etc.



          State judges may rule that certain provisions of laws passed by the legislature are unconstitutional federally, or might violate the Supremacy Clause due to federal law or precedent. But no judge on any state bench can rule the amendment itself to be unconstitutional. Basically, North Carolina can't not have some kind of photo ID requirement because of this amendment, and no state judge can change that.



          Only a federal judge, or an act of Congress dealing with the merits of voter ID as a concept can invalidate the amendment.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 12




            This is a nice answer, but the last paragraph is incorrect. A state judge can rule that a state law is invalid on federal constitutional grounds. This is true generally, but it is explicitly true in North Carolina because its constitution says that "no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion [of the federal constitution] can have any binding force." Any ruling by a state judge on a question of federal law (including the federal constitution) can be reviewed and potentially overturned by a federal court, of course.
            – phoog
            Nov 19 at 20:46








          • 3




            Furthermore, under the federal constitution, it is not even possible for a state to forbid its judges from considering federal questions, including federal constitutional questions: "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."
            – phoog
            Nov 19 at 21:27










          • Plus, if there are federal courts in NC, then technically the judges would be "judges within the state".
            – Acccumulation
            Nov 19 at 22:24






          • 2




            @Joshua it would be a failure of that judge to upload their oath to the federal constitution if the judge upheld a state law in contravention to the federal constitution (or even to a valid federal law or treaty). See article VI of the US Constitution
            – Viktor
            Nov 20 at 2:21






          • 2




            It occurs to me that I quoted the same passage from the constitution as does the answer, but I did not explain why the last statement does not follow from the quoted passage. The phrase "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" actually requires state judges to resolve conflicts between federal law and state law in favor of federal law.
            – phoog
            Nov 20 at 3:36

















          up vote
          20
          down vote













          Yes. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution overrides any state law -- even a state constitutional amendment.



          Article 6, Paragraph 2 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 only thing that a state constitutional amendment accomplishes in the case of North Carolina is that it prohibits judges within the state from overruling it -- even on constitutional grounds (since an amendment is part of the constitution, you can't rule it to be unconstitutional).



          A Federal judge can still rule NC's amendment unconstitutional per the federal constitution's supremacy clause, but it must be a Federal judge that does it.





          Update:



          The comments this answer has generated indicate that I need to clarify my last statement. I was speaking of NC's voter ID amendment specifically.



          It needs to be said that there is no federal law, nor any federal court precedent that forbids voter ID laws in general. In fact, 17 states already have them. Therefore, NC's amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause by itself. NC's voter ID amendment only states that a photo ID is necessary to vote in person at a polling station. That's it. Nothing more.



          The purpose of the amendment is that it requires the state legislature to pass laws specifying the details of what types of ID are acceptable, what ways a person may go about getting one, etc.



          State judges may rule that certain provisions of laws passed by the legislature are unconstitutional federally, or might violate the Supremacy Clause due to federal law or precedent. But no judge on any state bench can rule the amendment itself to be unconstitutional. Basically, North Carolina can't not have some kind of photo ID requirement because of this amendment, and no state judge can change that.



          Only a federal judge, or an act of Congress dealing with the merits of voter ID as a concept can invalidate the amendment.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 12




            This is a nice answer, but the last paragraph is incorrect. A state judge can rule that a state law is invalid on federal constitutional grounds. This is true generally, but it is explicitly true in North Carolina because its constitution says that "no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion [of the federal constitution] can have any binding force." Any ruling by a state judge on a question of federal law (including the federal constitution) can be reviewed and potentially overturned by a federal court, of course.
            – phoog
            Nov 19 at 20:46








          • 3




            Furthermore, under the federal constitution, it is not even possible for a state to forbid its judges from considering federal questions, including federal constitutional questions: "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."
            – phoog
            Nov 19 at 21:27










          • Plus, if there are federal courts in NC, then technically the judges would be "judges within the state".
            – Acccumulation
            Nov 19 at 22:24






          • 2




            @Joshua it would be a failure of that judge to upload their oath to the federal constitution if the judge upheld a state law in contravention to the federal constitution (or even to a valid federal law or treaty). See article VI of the US Constitution
            – Viktor
            Nov 20 at 2:21






          • 2




            It occurs to me that I quoted the same passage from the constitution as does the answer, but I did not explain why the last statement does not follow from the quoted passage. The phrase "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" actually requires state judges to resolve conflicts between federal law and state law in favor of federal law.
            – phoog
            Nov 20 at 3:36















          up vote
          20
          down vote










          up vote
          20
          down vote









          Yes. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution overrides any state law -- even a state constitutional amendment.



          Article 6, Paragraph 2 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 only thing that a state constitutional amendment accomplishes in the case of North Carolina is that it prohibits judges within the state from overruling it -- even on constitutional grounds (since an amendment is part of the constitution, you can't rule it to be unconstitutional).



          A Federal judge can still rule NC's amendment unconstitutional per the federal constitution's supremacy clause, but it must be a Federal judge that does it.





          Update:



          The comments this answer has generated indicate that I need to clarify my last statement. I was speaking of NC's voter ID amendment specifically.



          It needs to be said that there is no federal law, nor any federal court precedent that forbids voter ID laws in general. In fact, 17 states already have them. Therefore, NC's amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause by itself. NC's voter ID amendment only states that a photo ID is necessary to vote in person at a polling station. That's it. Nothing more.



          The purpose of the amendment is that it requires the state legislature to pass laws specifying the details of what types of ID are acceptable, what ways a person may go about getting one, etc.



          State judges may rule that certain provisions of laws passed by the legislature are unconstitutional federally, or might violate the Supremacy Clause due to federal law or precedent. But no judge on any state bench can rule the amendment itself to be unconstitutional. Basically, North Carolina can't not have some kind of photo ID requirement because of this amendment, and no state judge can change that.



          Only a federal judge, or an act of Congress dealing with the merits of voter ID as a concept can invalidate the amendment.






          share|improve this answer














          Yes. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution overrides any state law -- even a state constitutional amendment.



          Article 6, Paragraph 2 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 only thing that a state constitutional amendment accomplishes in the case of North Carolina is that it prohibits judges within the state from overruling it -- even on constitutional grounds (since an amendment is part of the constitution, you can't rule it to be unconstitutional).



          A Federal judge can still rule NC's amendment unconstitutional per the federal constitution's supremacy clause, but it must be a Federal judge that does it.





          Update:



          The comments this answer has generated indicate that I need to clarify my last statement. I was speaking of NC's voter ID amendment specifically.



          It needs to be said that there is no federal law, nor any federal court precedent that forbids voter ID laws in general. In fact, 17 states already have them. Therefore, NC's amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause by itself. NC's voter ID amendment only states that a photo ID is necessary to vote in person at a polling station. That's it. Nothing more.



          The purpose of the amendment is that it requires the state legislature to pass laws specifying the details of what types of ID are acceptable, what ways a person may go about getting one, etc.



          State judges may rule that certain provisions of laws passed by the legislature are unconstitutional federally, or might violate the Supremacy Clause due to federal law or precedent. But no judge on any state bench can rule the amendment itself to be unconstitutional. Basically, North Carolina can't not have some kind of photo ID requirement because of this amendment, and no state judge can change that.



          Only a federal judge, or an act of Congress dealing with the merits of voter ID as a concept can invalidate the amendment.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 2 days ago

























          answered Nov 19 at 19:30









          Wes Sayeed

          6,90921137




          6,90921137








          • 12




            This is a nice answer, but the last paragraph is incorrect. A state judge can rule that a state law is invalid on federal constitutional grounds. This is true generally, but it is explicitly true in North Carolina because its constitution says that "no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion [of the federal constitution] can have any binding force." Any ruling by a state judge on a question of federal law (including the federal constitution) can be reviewed and potentially overturned by a federal court, of course.
            – phoog
            Nov 19 at 20:46








          • 3




            Furthermore, under the federal constitution, it is not even possible for a state to forbid its judges from considering federal questions, including federal constitutional questions: "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."
            – phoog
            Nov 19 at 21:27










          • Plus, if there are federal courts in NC, then technically the judges would be "judges within the state".
            – Acccumulation
            Nov 19 at 22:24






          • 2




            @Joshua it would be a failure of that judge to upload their oath to the federal constitution if the judge upheld a state law in contravention to the federal constitution (or even to a valid federal law or treaty). See article VI of the US Constitution
            – Viktor
            Nov 20 at 2:21






          • 2




            It occurs to me that I quoted the same passage from the constitution as does the answer, but I did not explain why the last statement does not follow from the quoted passage. The phrase "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" actually requires state judges to resolve conflicts between federal law and state law in favor of federal law.
            – phoog
            Nov 20 at 3:36
















          • 12




            This is a nice answer, but the last paragraph is incorrect. A state judge can rule that a state law is invalid on federal constitutional grounds. This is true generally, but it is explicitly true in North Carolina because its constitution says that "no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion [of the federal constitution] can have any binding force." Any ruling by a state judge on a question of federal law (including the federal constitution) can be reviewed and potentially overturned by a federal court, of course.
            – phoog
            Nov 19 at 20:46








          • 3




            Furthermore, under the federal constitution, it is not even possible for a state to forbid its judges from considering federal questions, including federal constitutional questions: "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."
            – phoog
            Nov 19 at 21:27










          • Plus, if there are federal courts in NC, then technically the judges would be "judges within the state".
            – Acccumulation
            Nov 19 at 22:24






          • 2




            @Joshua it would be a failure of that judge to upload their oath to the federal constitution if the judge upheld a state law in contravention to the federal constitution (or even to a valid federal law or treaty). See article VI of the US Constitution
            – Viktor
            Nov 20 at 2:21






          • 2




            It occurs to me that I quoted the same passage from the constitution as does the answer, but I did not explain why the last statement does not follow from the quoted passage. The phrase "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" actually requires state judges to resolve conflicts between federal law and state law in favor of federal law.
            – phoog
            Nov 20 at 3:36










          12




          12




          This is a nice answer, but the last paragraph is incorrect. A state judge can rule that a state law is invalid on federal constitutional grounds. This is true generally, but it is explicitly true in North Carolina because its constitution says that "no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion [of the federal constitution] can have any binding force." Any ruling by a state judge on a question of federal law (including the federal constitution) can be reviewed and potentially overturned by a federal court, of course.
          – phoog
          Nov 19 at 20:46






          This is a nice answer, but the last paragraph is incorrect. A state judge can rule that a state law is invalid on federal constitutional grounds. This is true generally, but it is explicitly true in North Carolina because its constitution says that "no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion [of the federal constitution] can have any binding force." Any ruling by a state judge on a question of federal law (including the federal constitution) can be reviewed and potentially overturned by a federal court, of course.
          – phoog
          Nov 19 at 20:46






          3




          3




          Furthermore, under the federal constitution, it is not even possible for a state to forbid its judges from considering federal questions, including federal constitutional questions: "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."
          – phoog
          Nov 19 at 21:27




          Furthermore, under the federal constitution, it is not even possible for a state to forbid its judges from considering federal questions, including federal constitutional questions: "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."
          – phoog
          Nov 19 at 21:27












          Plus, if there are federal courts in NC, then technically the judges would be "judges within the state".
          – Acccumulation
          Nov 19 at 22:24




          Plus, if there are federal courts in NC, then technically the judges would be "judges within the state".
          – Acccumulation
          Nov 19 at 22:24




          2




          2




          @Joshua it would be a failure of that judge to upload their oath to the federal constitution if the judge upheld a state law in contravention to the federal constitution (or even to a valid federal law or treaty). See article VI of the US Constitution
          – Viktor
          Nov 20 at 2:21




          @Joshua it would be a failure of that judge to upload their oath to the federal constitution if the judge upheld a state law in contravention to the federal constitution (or even to a valid federal law or treaty). See article VI of the US Constitution
          – Viktor
          Nov 20 at 2:21




          2




          2




          It occurs to me that I quoted the same passage from the constitution as does the answer, but I did not explain why the last statement does not follow from the quoted passage. The phrase "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" actually requires state judges to resolve conflicts between federal law and state law in favor of federal law.
          – phoog
          Nov 20 at 3:36






          It occurs to me that I quoted the same passage from the constitution as does the answer, but I did not explain why the last statement does not follow from the quoted passage. The phrase "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" actually requires state judges to resolve conflicts between federal law and state law in favor of federal law.
          – phoog
          Nov 20 at 3:36












          Joe Swain is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          Joe Swain is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













          Joe Swain is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          Joe Swain is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.















           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35477%2fcan-federal-courts-overrule-north-carolinas-vote-id-constitutional-amendment%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Morgemoulin

          Scott Moir

          Souastre