Skip to main content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.
The boxes below outline issue options but is not all-inclusive. It should also be noted that articles provide some background, but were not necessarily selected due to a balanced presentation. It is recommended that additional research by conduced on your selected issue.
Suggested Databases for this project:
- EBSCO Host (Legal Collection)
- Academic OneFile
- Opposing Viewpoints
- US History in Context
Fifty States, Fifty Attorneys General, and Fifty Approaches to the Duty to Defend
Whether a state attorney general has a duty to defend the validity of state law is a complicated question, one that cannot be decided by reference either to the oath state officers must take to support the federal Constitution or the supremacy of federal law. Instead, whether a state attorney general must defend state law turns on her own state's laws
Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.
The SUPREMACY CLAUSE of the Constitution (Article VI, clause 2) requires that inconsistent state laws yield to valid federal laws. Preemption is the term applied to describe invalidation of state laws by superior federal law.
Are workers' state pensions protected by from bankruptcy laws?
Judge Picks Supremacy Clause in Detroit’s Bankruptcy Battle
Federal bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes said on Tuesday that Detroit can possibly cut pensions for city workers as part of its bankruptcy proceedings, despite a Michigan constitutional provision that prevents such actions.
A Method of Protecting Pensions in Chapter 9: Defining the Interest as a Property Right
The article focuses on the need for passing a state statute or constitutional amendment under the public pension plan to protect the public employees and pensioners from modification by the U.S. federal bankruptcy court to chapter 9 of U.S. Bankruptcy Code. It discusses the significance of the defined contribution and the defined benefit pensions plans in improving the state of public pension funding and enhancing the pensioner's interest in receiving benefits as their property right.
Federalism and Fiduciaries: A New Framework for Protecting State Benefits
The financial crisis has underlined the difficulties states and localities face in paying benefits to their employees. The most spectacular example is Detroit's bankruptcy, but across the country, state and local employees face sharp cuts in benefits as their employers fight for solvency. A federal solution such as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which protects private pensions, is precluded both by considerations of federalism and the practical impossibility of getting major legislation through Congress. This Article proposes an alternative: a uniform state code, like other uniform laws such as the Uniform Commercial Code, that states could adopt to govern both state and local benefit plans.
Is sports gambling outside a casino legal?
About Half of US States Set No Minimum Age for Marriage
If you think child marriage is a thing of the past, think again: Here in America, tens of thousands of children have tied the knot in recent years, perfectly legally. Now rights activists are asking why a wealthy modern democracy can deem a child too young to vote or smoke, but old enough to marry.
Child Marriage is Still Legal in the US
Child marriage has a long and vibrant history in the United States. While activists have long urged legislators to raise the age of consent to marriage—and continue to do so—with parental consent it remains possible for minors to marry in every single state.
Can states ignore the Supreme Court on Gay Marriage?
Can states exempt themselves from federal gun laws?
Constitution Check: Can States Exempt Themselves From Federal Gun Laws?
Lyle Denniston, the National Constitution Center’s constitutional literacy adviser, looks at the controversy over the effort in Kansas to restrict federal gun laws its legislature believes violate the Second Amendment right to have and carry guns.
The Truth About the Second Amendment
The author comments on interpretations of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution regarding the right to bear arms, suggesting that it was designed to protect an individual right rather than states' rights to raise militias. He looks at the history of the Second Amendment from its creation in 1781 through the end of the Civil War, covering Supreme Court decisions on its legal meanings.
The Pros and Cons of Background Checks and Background Checks and Gun Control Measures
The article mentions views of U.S. politicians including Richard Blumenthal, Debbie Lesko and Dianne Feinstein on the pros and cons of background checks and gun control measures. Topics include the possibility of increase in gun violence with the passing of the Bipartisan Background Checks of 2019 and the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019; Blumenthal on the emergency risk protection order or red flag statutes under the laws; and universal background checks for firearms control.
If the production, distribution, and consumption of marijuana is illegal under federal law, are states that allow such behaviors violating the US Constitution?
Legal marijuana is the fastest-growing industry in the United States. It is premised on the assumption that marijuana ownership will be protected by law. But can marijuana be owned? This Article is the first scholarship to explore the issue. Federal law classifies marijuana as contraband per se in which property rights cannot exist. Yet the Article demonstrates that marijuana can now be owned under the law of most states, even though no state statutes or decisions expressly address the issue. This conflict presents a fundamental question of federalism: Can property rights exist under state law if they are forbidden by federal law?
Are States Winning the Marijuana Battle?
It might appear that sooner or later states legalizing the use of marijuana, contrary to federal law, will be crushed in federal courts. After all, federal laws, according to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, are the supreme laws of the land and preempt state laws.
Medical Marijuana: State Laws Versus Federal Laws, and How They Affect Property Managers
The ongoing nature of the debate over the legality of medical marijuana and how it should be regulated leaves a wide array of questions for property managers. With such a complicated and dynamic issue, it is critical that property managers are aware of the specific laws in their state, and to stay up to date on legislative and regulatory actions.