State vs Federal

The federal courts interpret federal laws and state courts interpret state laws, which helps Nevada retain power and assists on making sure the national government does not become too strong. Close to ninety percent of cases heard in the American court system happen at the state level. Examples include: A crime that is a violation of state law such as murder, traffic violations, assault, robbery, family cases and most drug-related crimes. State courts are the final mediators of state laws and constitutions, but their interpretation of federal laws or the United States Constitution could be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. http://judiciallearningcenter.org/state-courts-vs-federal-courts/

States and national government both had sovereignty from the people and therefore the Constitution could distribute powers between federal government and states but the Constitution was the supreme law

Federalism makes most policies lean more locally. States could tailor policy to fit their specific needs. For example, Texas has a very different social welfare system even under the supervision of the central federal system. As the state has populations, wealth, resources, etc.,

A public policy is the body of principles that underpin the operation of legal systems in each state. In this paper I am going to talk about federal along with state policies. I will discuss each of the policies and how they are similar and how they are different. Federal and State policies are made to help keep our Country running smoothly. If there were no policies then keeping our Country safe would be a hard task. Policies are principles that are set to help make our Country operate on a daily bases. I like to think of it as rules that are set to keep our Country safe; because if there were no rules then everyone would be doing their own thing which could cause for a very disorganized situation.

States have always been sensitive about the amount of power they have; the federal government has always had to step carefully around the demands of the states. This has been true since the beginning of the United States. But both believe that they should have the most power when it comes to certain things. Individual states have different values and as such tend to implement different laws about certain topics; such states want their state laws to reflect these individual values instead of a blanket law from the federal government. States should have less power compared to the federal government when implementing laws dealing with topics such as the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion.

In the United States Constitution it is stated that “No single section of the constitution deals with federalism. Instead, the provisions dividing power between the states and the national government appear throughout the constitution. Most of the constitution is concerned with establishing the powers of the national government. National power is also based on the supremacy clause of article VI, which says that the constitution and laws made in accordance with it are “the supreme law of the land”. This means that when national and state laws conflict, the national laws will be followed. Article I, section 9 limits the power of the national government over individuals. The tenth amendment the constitution also limits the state powers in Article I, section10 and denies the states certain powers” (Keeping the

The American legal system consists of two separate levels of court, defined as federalism, which together administer and enforce the laws in the United States. Federalism distributes the government powers between both the federal governments and the state governments, which ensures that the power of the national government is decentralized.

The United States government system is very interesting and complexly designed. The state and federal government is a mirror of each other when it comes to the generics of the executive branch, legislative branch, and judicial branch, however, internally the state government has major differences on how the branches are conducted. Throughout this paper we will discuss the greatest difference between state and federal, which is the state cannot change or remove laws passed by the federal government but they could change how they execute the federal laws to their liking as long as it is constitutional.

For example, Harborside health center in Oakland, California is a medical Marijuana dispensary. But wait, you might say, marijuana is illegal in the United States, right? According to the federal government it is, but according to the California state government it is not. The people at Harborshide Health Center are committing federal crimes that can result in the death penalty but in California it is completely legal. In Montana, Gary Marbut fights for gun rights. He says the federal government has overstepped their boundaries when it comes to gun regulations. He has managed to get his Montana Buck-a-roo law, as well has 57 other laws, passed in the state of Montana. The Buck-a-roo law states that a gun manufactured, and sold in the state of Montana and never crossing state lines is not subject to federal regulations. In March 2011, Kentucky senator Rand Paul said, during an energy committee hearing, that the federal government has violated his freedom to choose a toilet. The Energy policy Act of 1992, to which Senator Paul is referring, regulated the amount of water that toilets could flush. Similarly the 2011 edition of the Federal Register calls milk an edible oil and requires farmers to treat the milk produced on their farms as such. Another regulation in the Federal Register is the one making it illegal for anyone, other than a

The relationship between the Federal government and the states is well stable. The Federal government has powers given by the Constitution as well powers or privileges are given to the states which promotes a balance between the two so that our country is not ruled under one specific party or group. The question now is that, are the states rights more than well protected in the current constitution and the political practice.

The difference between federal courts and State courts is that State courts are usually established by a state themselves and Federal courts are established under the U.S. Constitution to decide disputes involving the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.

The federal government began to gain power, and in Article I section 8 says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts and provide the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imports and excises shall be uniform through the United States; to borrow money on the credit of the United Staes; to regulate commerce with foreign nation, and among the several states, and with the Indians Tribes… to establish post offices and post roads .” The following quote describes how the national government has different kinds of power compared to federal government. Article IV section 1 says, “full faith and credit shall be given in each states to the public acts, records, and judicial proceeding of every other state. And the Congress may general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved… ” In simpler words, the state government has to follow laws just like a ordinary

The U.S. Constitution created a strong government structure for the United States known as federalism. Both the federal and state governments must have their own court systems to apply and interpret their own specific laws. Both federal and state constitutions attempt to do this by specifically spelling out the jurisdiction of their own court systems. For example, U.S Constitution gives Congress the power to make uniform laws concerning bankruptcies, a state court would lack jurisdiction in this matter. Since the Constitution does not give the federal government authority in most matters concerning the regulation of the family, a federal court would lack jurisdiction in a divorce case. This is the main reason why there are two separate court systems in America. The federal court system deals with issues of law relating to those powers implicitly granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. The state court systems deal with issues of laws relating to those matters that the U.S. Constitution did not give to the federal government or deny to the states.

In the Court’s highly fragmented decision, the justices attempted to define a proper balance of and boundary between federal and state authority: by arguing that state action constituted only those acts sanctioned by the state’s laws and by dismissing Section 20 for vagueness, the major block of dissenters suggested that the risk posed to state autonomy by federal intervention was too great; by recognizing the defendants’ actions as those perpetrated “under color of law” and by creating a “willful” test for acts under Section 20, the majority Opinion affirmed the federal government’s interest in protecting the rights of citizens from abuse by state authority, but provided it with a tenuous means for defending those liberties.

In the USA and in each of the fifty states, the most basic fundamental is a constitution, which is a relatively simple document and is the self-designated supreme law of the land. As the supreme law of the land, Constitutional Law texts are generally divided into two parts. The first part is about the allocation of powers. This entails two basic principles of American Constitution:separation of powers and division of powers. The former one discusses the interaction among the three constituent elements of national goverment, while the latter one refers to the extent of power possessing by the federal goverment and specification of states' power. Both of the two principles function under one