Live Breaking News & Updates on Supremacy clause of the constitution

Stay informed with the latest breaking news from Supremacy clause of the constitution on our comprehensive webpage. Get up-to-the-minute updates on local events, politics, business, entertainment, and more. Our dedicated team of journalists delivers timely and reliable news, ensuring you're always in the know. Discover firsthand accounts, expert analysis, and exclusive interviews, all in one convenient destination. Don't miss a beat — visit our webpage for real-time breaking news in Supremacy clause of the constitution and stay connected to the pulse of your community

Ayman

we should chaos. >> halation -- other bills that are variants of it are? >> i think that the course will weigh in. i think they will be struck down just as we saw years ago when arizona passed a show your papers law when it comes to immigration, a unified approach is not just essential for maintaining order, fairness, the integrity of our nation's laws. but that is precisely why we have the supremacy clause of the constitution. so i do believe the courts will deem these both illegal and unconstitutional. but also they are impacted l coo. law enforcement go al is going to have difficulty implementing them. migrants will have an experience, chilling affect where they are not going to be willing to come forward to report crimes to be helpful.

Course , Bills , Chaos , Variants , Halation , Show , Immigration , Approach , Papers , Order , Arizona , Laws

FOX News Sunday

the great thing about this with me being president's not going to be an issue because i am going to empower states and localities to enforce federal immigration law. we have this crazy thing were somehow the federal government says it is their sole providence to enforce immigration law under the supremacy clause of the constitution. yet they say states cannot enforce it and be faithful to the law because the federal government does not want to enforce a lot makes no sense we are going to have all hands on deck i have worke work at border sheriffs just as governor of florida in places like arizona and texas. their communities are getting overrun for the state of texas. all states and localities will be empowered to enforce federal law that includes at the border but also includes the interior of our country but if you have criminal aliens state and local need to be working with federal so we can deport the people. we need to work to make sure were deporting illegal aliens in particular the eight mil then come and under bite it will be working together were going to hold century states in century

Former , Thing , Issue , Government , States , Immigration-law , Localities , Lot , Law , Sense , Border-sheriffs , Hands-on-deck

FOX News Sunday

the great thing about this with me being president's not going to be an issue because i am going to empower states and localities to enforce federal immigration law. we have this crazy thing were somehow the federal government says it is their sole providence to enforce immigration law under the supremacy clause of the constitution. yet they say states cannot enforce it and be faithful to the law because the federal government does not want to enforce a lot makes no sense we are going to have all hands on deck i have wo work at border sheriffs just as governor of florida in places like arizona and texas. their communities are getting overrun for the state of texas. all states and localities will be empowered to enforce federal law that includes at the border but also includes the interior of our country but if you have criminal aliens state and local need to be working with federal so we can deport the people. we need to work to make sure were deporting illegal aliens in particular the eight mil then come and under bite it will be working together were going to hold century states in century

Former , Thing , Issue , Government , States , Immigration-law , Localities , Lot , Law , Sense , Hands , Deck

The Last Word With Lawrence ODonnell

consider the possibility of donald trump becoming president again, which i don't think he will, which is why i don't factor that in to my legal analysis of where these cases are going, but in the event that he does, there's only two cases here that, as president, he could basically make disappear, and those are the two federal cases. >> well, i think that's directly true, lawrence, but i think he would have a pretty good argument that the state cases would have to stop, or if he has been convicted and there's an attempt to try to imprison him or something, that the constitution forbids that. the argument is basically based on the supremacy clause of the constitution, which generally doesn't allow one state to undo the nations hole -- and it's business. i don't think it's right as some people are suggesting to say well the state court cases are absolutely immune from a trump presidency. i don't think they are. and so to me that illustrates the importance of getting

Donald-trump , President , Cases , Analysis , Possibility , Event , Two , State , Argument , Lawrence , Attempt , Stop

The Last Word With Lawrence ODonnell

where judge cannon has technically kept that date, but she is going to hear from the parties, she said, in the beginning of march, as to whether that is a feasible date. so i think that case is likely to be pushed off, which, from jack smith's perspective, is probably just fine to have a bigger case, the january 6th case, slot in second. >> neal, just for a second to consider the possibility of donald trump becoming president again, which i don't think he will, which is why i don't factor that in to my legal analysis of where these cases are going, but in the event that he does, there's only two cases here that, as president, he could basically make disappear, and those are the two federal cases. >> well, i think that's directly true, lawrence, but i think he would have a pretty good argument that the state cases would have to stop, or if he has been convicted and there's an attempt to try to imprison him or something, that the constitution forbids that. the argument is basically based on the supremacy clause of the constitution, which generally

The-civil-fraud-case , Perspective , Jack-smith , Cannon , Which , In-the-beginning-of-march , Parties , Colorado-supreme-court-decision-banning-donald-trump , President , Cases , Analysis , Second

Deadline White House

2021 that essentially outlaws attempts to supersede federal gun laws in missouri. the justice department and a federal judge has ruled that's in complete contravention of the supremacy clause of the constitution. in missouri, he's arguing against a strong central federal government and here for trump he's arguing for the strongest possible central presidency. so he is somebody who has shown, i think, a flexibility in terms of his capacity to pivot from one legal argument to the next. >> for people who didn't listen to it, it's hard to do because there's no cameras. you're listening to the audio. worth listening to. there were a lot of interesting, and as kirschner would say, novel legal arguments made. thanks to the three of you. glenn kirschner, david jolly, and glenn thrush, a good start to the hour. one of the police officers who defended the capitol on

Judge , Justice , Attempts , Department , Gun-laws-in-missouri , 2021 , Donald-trump , Presidency , Government , Missouri , Arguing , Contravention

American Voices With Alicia Menendez

that. that is a recipe for disaster in a state like texas. and secondly, this is about the supremacy clause of the constitution. time after time, the u.s. has said, the federal government has authority to deal with an aggression freshman and lost, knocks that governments. folks remember they did it for instance and 2012, after arizona passed show me your paper's law, we s.b.1070.. and it's very likely the supreme court buddha that here again was taken. however, it's important to know, what's changed since 2012, is this court has become much more conservative. with jobs, they throw at. roe they threw out affirmative action with the harvard case. could this be the next shoe to drop? and they actually empower states with more immigration enforcement? i don't think so and i hope not. but it's also a stickier. >> julián, i'm so glad you talked about s.b.1070.. because you and i watched, we

Texas , State , America , Government , Recipe , Disaster , Authority , Has , Latitude , Supremacy-clause-of-the-constitution , Folks , Law

American Voices With Alicia Menendez

enforcement to essentially stop folks who they think might be veer undocumented. and it gives them quite a considerable latitude to do that. that is a recipe for disaster in a state like texas. and secondly, this is about the supremacy clause of the constitution. time after time, the u.s. has said, the federal government has authority to deal with an aggression freshman and lost, knocks that governments. folks remember they did it for instance and 2012, after arizona passed show me your paper's law, we s. b. 1070.. and it's very likely the supreme court buddha that here again was taken. however, it's important to know, what's changed since 2012, is this court has become much more conservative. with jobs, they throw at. roe they threw out affirmative action with the harvard case. could this be the next shoe to drop? and they actually empower states with more immigration enforcement? i don't think so and i hope not. but it's also at stake here. >> julián, i'm so glad you talked about s. b. 1070.. because you and i watched, we came up during the ten years

State , Folks , Law-enforcement , Recipe , Disaster , Latitude , Texas , U-s- , Government , Authority , Has , Supremacy-clause-of-the-constitution

American Voices With Alicia Menendez

state illegally. it's one of the strictest state emigration enforcement laws in this country. but the idea argues the bills unconstitutional, human rights groups echoed those same concerns in a lawsuit filed last month. they said the tech is putting us the human rights of people to seek asylum. for more had secured julián castro is back with. julián, first, that department of justice is colin this law at texas unconstitutional. you've got immigrants rights group saying it's going to do to racial profiling. remind us what it stake here. >> what's at stake here, really, it's a couple of things. number one, a law that was passed is before in texas that truly does have the potential to lead to a sizable amount of racial profiling. texas is a state that is 40% latino or latina. this bill empowers law enforcement to essentially stop folks who they think might be veer undocumented. and it gives them quite a considerable latitude to do that. that is a recipe for disaster in a state like texas. and secondly, this is about the supremacy clause of the constitution. time after time, the u.s. has said, the federal government has authority to deal with an aggression freshman and lost,

People , State , Country , Julian-castro , More , Idea , America , Concerns , Human-rights-groups , State-emigration-enforcement-laws , Lawsuit , Bills

The Context

potential good argument _ actually think mark meadows has a potential good argument there - actually think mark meadows has a potential good argument there onl actually think mark meadows has a i potential good argument there on the sunremacy_ potential good argument there on the sunremacy clause _ potential good argument there on the supremacy clause of _ potential good argument there on the supremacy clause of the _ supremacy clause of the constitution. _ supremacy clause of the constitution. he - supremacy clause of the constitution. he was - supremacy clause of the i constitution. he was acting supremacy clause of the - constitution. he was acting as an officer— constitution. he was acting as an officer of— constitution. he was acting as an officer of the _ constitution. he was acting as an officer of the united _ constitution. he was acting as an officer of the united states, - constitution. he was acting as an officer of the united states, thel officer of the united states, the function — officer of the united states, the function and _ officer of the united states, the function and now— officer of the united states, the function and now he _ officer of the united states, the function and now he is- officer of the united states, the function and now he is being - function and now he is being prosecuted. _ function and now he is being prosecuted, so— function and now he is being prosecuted, so i— function and now he is being prosecuted, so i think- function and now he is beingl prosecuted, so i think there's function and now he is being i prosecuted, so i think there's a chance — prosecuted, so i think there's a chance we _ prosecuted, so i think there's a chance we might _ prosecuted, so i think there's a chance we might see _ prosecuted, so i think there's a chance we might see this - prosecuted, so i think there's a chance we might see this case i prosecuted, so i think there's a - chance we might see this case lifted out of— chance we might see this case lifted out of state — chance we might see this case lifted out of state court _ chance we might see this case lifted out of state court in _ chance we might see this case lifted out of state court in georgia - chance we might see this case lifted out of state court in georgia in- out of state court in georgia in which — out of state court in georgia in which case _ out of state court in georgia in which case it— out of state court in georgia in which case it would _ out of state court in georgia in which case it would go - out of state court in georgia in which case it would go to - out of state court in georgia in. which case it would go to federal district _ which case it would go to federal district court _ which case it would go to federal district court in _ which case it would go to federal district court in georgia. - which case it would go to federal district court in georgia. so - which case it would go to federal district court in georgia. so it. district court in georgia. so it would — district court in georgia. so it would leave _ district court in georgia. so it would leave the _ district court in georgia. so it would leave the state, - district court in georgia. so it would leave the state, but. district court in georgia. so it would leave the state, but iti district court in georgia. so it- would leave the state, but it would leave _ would leave the state, but it would leave the _ would leave the state, but it would leave the state's _ would leave the state, but it would leave the state's jurisdiction. - leave the state'sjurisdiction. fani wiiiis _ leave the state'sjurisdiction. fani wiiiis wouid — leave the state'sjurisdiction. fani willis would have _ leave the state'sjurisdiction. fani willis would have to _ leave the state'sjurisdiction. fani willis would have to decide - leave the state'sjurisdiction. fani willis would have to decide that l leave the state'sjurisdiction. fani . willis would have to decide that she sever— willis would have to decide that she sever the _ willis would have to decide that she sever the defendants _ willis would have to decide that she sever the defendants and _ willis would have to decide that she sever the defendants and try to - willis would have to decide that she sever the defendants and try to pull some _ sever the defendants and try to pull some of— sever the defendants and try to pull some of them — sever the defendants and try to pull some of them back _ sever the defendants and try to pull some of them back to _ sever the defendants and try to pull some of them back to state - sever the defendants and try to pull some of them back to state court i some of them back to state court or mum _ some of them back to state court or mum iet _ some of them back to state court or mum let the — some of them back to state court or mum let the entire _ some of them back to state court or mum let the entire case _ some of them back to state court or mum let the entire case move - some of them back to state court or mum let the entire case move up. mum let the entire case move up to federal— mum let the entire case move up to federal court — mum let the entire case move up to federal court. so— mum let the entire case move up to federal court. so it's _ mum let the entire case move up to federal court. so it's the _ mum let the entire case move up to federal court. so it's the number of| federal court. so it's the number of issues _ federal court. so it's the number of issues surrounding _ federal court. so it's the number of issues surrounding these _ federal court. so it's the number of issues surrounding these cases - federal court. so it's the number of. issues surrounding these cases which again— issues surrounding these cases which again is— issues surrounding these cases which again is why— issues surrounding these cases which again is why i — issues surrounding these cases which again is why i am _ issues surrounding these cases which again is why i am so— issues surrounding these cases which again is why i am so sceptical- issues surrounding these cases which again is why i am so sceptical when l again is why i am so sceptical when i again is why i am so sceptical when i hear— again is why i am so sceptical when i hear it— again is why i am so sceptical when i hear it very— again is why i am so sceptical when i hear it very aggressive _ i hear it very aggressive trial dates— i hear it very aggressive trial dates because _ i hear it very aggressive trial dates because there - i hear it very aggressive trial dates because there are - i hear it very aggressive trial dates because there are real i hear it very aggressive trial- dates because there are real legal issues _ dates because there are real legal issues that— dates because there are real legal issues that have _ dates because there are real legal issues that have to _ dates because there are real legal issues that have to be _ dates because there are real legal issues that have to be ironed - dates because there are real legal issues that have to be ironed outl issues that have to be ironed out and mark— issues that have to be ironed out and mark meadows _ issues that have to be ironed out and mark meadows was - issues that have to be ironed out and mark meadows was the - issues that have to be ironed outj and mark meadows was the head issues that have to be ironed out i and mark meadows was the head of issues that have to be ironed out - and mark meadows was the head of the pack and _ and mark meadows was the head of the pack and raising — and mark meadows was the head of the pack and raising that _ and mark meadows was the head of the pack and raising that argument. - and mark meadows was the head of the pack and raising that argument. i - pack and raising that argument. i think— pack and raising that argument. i think there's _ pack and raising that argument. i think there's going _ pack and raising that argument. i think there's going to _ pack and raising that argument. i think there's going to be - pack and raising that argument. i think there's going to be a - pack and raising that argument. i i think there's going to be a hearing as soon— think there's going to be a hearing as soon as — think there's going to be a hearing as soon as possible _ think there's going to be a hearing as soon as possible monday - think there's going to be a hearing as soon as possible monday on - think there's going to be a hearing as soon as possible monday on his motion _ as soon as possible monday on his motion so — as soon as possible monday on his motion so it— as soon as possible monday on his motion so it will— as soon as possible monday on his motion so it will be _ as soon as possible monday on his motion so it will be really- motion so it will be really interesting _ motion so it will be really interesting to— motion so it will be really interesting to see - motion so it will be really interesting to see if - motion so it will be really interesting to see if he i motion so it will be really- interesting to see if he successful there _ interesting to see if he successful there. . �* . interesting to see if he successful there. , �* . �* there. chris bruce, you've come across fani _ there. chris bruce, you've come across fani willis _ there. chris bruce, you've come across fani willis in _ there. chris bruce, you've come across fani willis in georgia, . there. chris bruce, you've come i across fani willis in georgia, she's under a lot of pressure right now

Argument- , Public-school-case , Mark-meadows , Fani-willis-in-georgia , State-court , Case , Function , Officer , Chance , Constitution , American , Supremacy-clause