Stossel Doesn't Know the Supremacy Clause.

As I was reading this article I was amazed at what Libertarian John Stossel had to say about the issue of state versus federal law. He said that “state law cannot override federal law”. This is not a knock against John Stossel because I think he is a great reporter but I believe he is a wrong.

“His California reference was to Proposition 19, a ballot measure that would legalize marijuana in California. Obama’s Justice Department says that even if California voters pass Prop 19, the Feds will still arrest pot users. I understand why they have to take that position — state law cannot override federal law — but it’s such hypocrisy. The President admits that he smoked weed, but he has his men lock up others who do what he did. His predecessors were hypocrites too.”

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 supremacy clause states that it is the constitution and all laws made in pursuance of it that are supreme. This may be interpreted to mean that all laws passed by the federal legislature are supreme but it does not say that. It says all laws made in pursuance of the constitution are.

This implies that there are laws NOT made in pursuance of the constitution. Those laws are not the supreme law of the land and have no weight within any state whatsoever when that state has a contrary law to it.

The only way Stossel's vision of the supremacy clause can be considered correct is if it said this.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made by the congress; 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.

If it said that then Stossel would be correct but it doesn't so he is wrong on this issue.