According to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, says that the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties are “the supreme law of the land.”
However, there is a conflict there. That is, the constitution dominates, and only if they are constitutional do federal statutes apply, and only if treaties both follow the constitution and federal law, do they apply.
“The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution.
“Nullification, is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers.
“The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.”
However, this is not as clear as it seems. Because states have some degree of autonomy, while congress can push around state legislatures, and federal judges can push around both state judges and state legislatures; neither the POTUS, nor the congress, nor can federal judges (for the most part), can push around state governors.
But this is somewhat muddy, and instead of clearly being dictated by the constitution, over time it has instead become a “contest of wills”.
And to make things even more interesting, the Roberts’ decision in Obamacare opened the door to what in the future can be a “great return to constitutionalism.”
That is, FDR abused the constitution, horrifically extrapolating the Interstate Commerce Clause to mean “all commerce”, an extrapolation which has existed since; and LBJ made just as bad an extrapolation of the General Welfare Clause, to create a welfare state. And *that* is still being used, though clearly violating the constitution.
And they are still at it, the most recent effort to extend the federal government’s authority over “navigable waterways” to *all* water in the US, is downright obscene.
But the Roberts’ decision might change all that, because though the Supreme Court was humbled by FDR into rationalizing his clearly unconstitutional actions, the SCOTUS is starting to lose its fear, and may now undo a lot of the villainy that was done.
But he did so by opening the door to a future congress to change things back to constitutionality, and making it easier for them to do so.
Roberts is probably subject blackmail over his children who were, apparently, adopted by circumventing Irish law.
I don't know; I think the resultant Affordable Care Act (which is what you're talking about, no?) majority opinion was addled, written like a drugged man. It's not indicative of someone in a sound state of mind. Overwhelming fear could account for it, as could the aforementioned drugs. In neither case, however, does the opinion read with the real confidence/assurance of one without fear.
But he did so by opening the door to a future congress to change things back to constitutionality, and making it easier for them to do so.
Congress always had that option; the "it's not the SCOTUS's job to protect the people from unconstitutional acts" statement was completely and utterly false: it is the Supreme Court's job... just like it's the Congress's, or the President's. What else can the oath of office mean?
“Nullification, is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.”
I somehow get the uneasy feeling that this is nothing more than the legal attempt to discredit jury nullification. By overloading the word 'nullification' an agent of the Judiciary can say "the supreme court has found nullification to be unconstitutional" and technically be making a true statement but, deceiving nonetheless, let people think that he is talking about jury nullification. (It seems to me the judiciary [and prosecution] hates and despises jury nullification; which is why they work so hard on making it seem like the jury must convict if the accused was in violation of some statute/ordnance/law even [especially?] if it is unlawful -- simply because of the fact that they lose power the more autonomy the jury has.)