Would it be better if state laws preempted federal laws (just in that particular state of course)?

Question

I just read the Justice departments brief where they outlined the case they have against Arizona, concerning AZ 1070. When I read it, I see so much stuff in Arizona's bill that isn't in the federal law, and doesn't necessarily conflict with federal law, but regardless should be federal law.

I'm also thinking about the upcoming prop 19 in California, and wondering how they'll get around a similar law suit, since legalizing cannabis will surely preempt a bunch of federal laws. (Yet somehow, in Alaska, you can legally possess one ounce of weed)

I'm all for states rights in the first place, and I can understand why the supremacy clause is in the constitution but wouldn't it be interesting if state laws preempted federal laws, so federal laws could only deal with things that states wouldn't or couldn't legislate anyway (i.e. regulations on interstate commerce, declaring war on other countries, etc.)

Answer 1

The problem with the Arizona law, according to the opponents, is that it is state regulation in an area which can ONLY be regulated federally--the issue is EXCLUSIVELY federal.



Regulation of drug possession is not EXCLUSIVELY federal, both the states and federal government can regulate in the area since (according to the US Supreme Court), drugs are part of interstate commerce. California can choose not to regulate drug possession with no effect whatsoever upon federal regulations, so there is no preemption issue.

Answer 2

Federal law only overrides state law when it is power constitutionally granted to the federal government. Read the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Answer 3

No. We tried that once (Articles of Confederation) and it failed. Giving the states more power than the national government would be similar to the European Union. As you can see, they're having problems with that now.