35

With regard to subpoenas, the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Trump v. Vance makes it clear that states can issue subpoenas to sitting presidents. (The case in question involved a subpoena to a third party for the president's records, not to the president himself, but the opinion makes it clear that the court would apply the same reasoning in either ...


17

The short answer is that this has never been tested so we can't know for sure. The longer answer is that past Presidents have been subpoenaed to testify in court but in those cases were never forced by the court to comply, the most recent being President Clinton who was subpoenaed to testify but struck a deal instead where he testified voluntarily in ...


8

Others have addressed the power of a state court to subpoena a President (correctly IMHO), subject to privileges for national security secrets and confidential advice regarding a President's official duties. Pending actions against the President for defamation outside an official capacity action have not dismissed those cases as a matter of Presidential ...


6

Civil Procedure In Interstate Disputes Legal disputes between U.S. states (or between the United States government and a U.S. state, or both) are resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court and in these disputes, the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.* This means that the U.S. Supreme Court functions as a trial court, rather than as an appellate court in ...


5

The basic constitutional underpinning is the Commerce Clause and the 14th amendment (see Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336 § 2(b)(4)). As a general rule, if you do a thing that has potential commercial impact involving another state (such as growing feed for your animals and therefore not buying feed from a farmer out of state), ...


5

While the point made by user6726 is not wrong with respect to this particular statute, it doesn't address a more basic point about how the supremacy clause works. Federal criminal laws govern punishments for federal crimes in the federal criminal justice system. Federal prosecutors bringing federal criminal charges against criminal defendants in the ...


4

Article I, Section 8 of the United States lists the powers of Congress (and a handful a sprinkled elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, such as the power to regulate court jurisdiction in Article III and the enforcement powers of the 13th and 14th Amendments, to give a non-exclusive list). These powers include powers reasonable and ...


4

It’s complicated. Most crimes in DC that would be state crimes elsewhere are punished under the DC Code, which was at one point written by Congress but which the DC Council now has the power to amend (subject to Congress’s right to change it at any time). Crimes under the DC Code are tried in the DC Superior Court, which is generally considered a local ...


4

The key is "jurisdiction". The law says "Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States...". For instance, a murder in a national park is within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United states, but my backyard is not, rather it is within the jurisdiction of Washington State. "Special maritime and ...


4

Revised for clarity in light of comments State and local police can arrest anyone who they have probable cause to believe is breaking state or local law. Like all LEOs, Federal LEOs can break some state and local laws while enforcing Federal law. When they grab someone off the street and hold them in a cell, they are detaining them, not kidnapping them, ...


3

India is a quasi-federation Powers are split between the state and national government as detailed in the constitution. India is a halfway point between full federations (e.g. USA, Australia) and unitary nations (e.g. France, Austria) - it still has sovereign states like a federation but the national government has much more power to intervene. ...


3

The Steven Avery case is explained in detail at Wikipedia. Federal courts can collaterally review state court convictions in a habeas corpus action to determine if the conviction was obtained through a violation of a person's federal constitutional rights that the state courts refused to remedy after the person aggrieved attempted to obtain a remedy in the ...


3

I think "State" refers to State (e.g. Texas, Indiana, ...) and NOT to the federal government. That's why at first the Bill of Rights was effective only against the Federal Government, while the States can violate your rights. Then the 14th Amendment was enacted and now most rights of the Bill of Rights are incorporated against States too. The 14th Amendment ...


3

Pursuant to the New States Clause of the Constitution (Art IV, Sec 3, Cl 1), New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of ...


3

Yes. This would require the consent of Congress and the accepting U.S. state, but Puerto Rico's consent would not be constitutionally required (although it would be prudent to obtain and probably would be obtained as a matter of custom and fairness). New York States has floated the possibility of annexing Puerto Rico since it is the single most ...


3

Short Answer if you use medical marijuana prescribed by a doctor. Are you automatically an unlawful user of a controlled substance and cannot possess, use, buy, sell, gift, or transfer firearms? Basically yes. If you use medical marijuana prescribed by a doctor on a regular basis you are a prohibited person pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), and you are ...


2

Generally speaking, state law and state constitutions govern the allocation of authority between local government and state government. The primary exception to this general rule was set forth in the case of Romer v. Evans which held that prohibiting local governments from passing laws protecting gay rights violated the equal protection clause of the 14th ...


2

The Federal Government does not have full legal jurisdiction. You're mistakenly assuming it has. The problem is that governments (federal and state) can act as private parties in certain cases. In particular, they can be owners. The Eminent Domain principle allows the Federal government to take ownership, yes, but ownership does not give full legal ...


2

It could be that BART uses federal money from Department of Transportation (DOT) allocated to mass transit systems by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which is the department that deals with public transportation. By taking the money, the FTA can then enforce federal laws on the system. This is not a violation of Commerce Clause because the state ...


2

So why can they legally print money? Basically: If it's illegal for all states to print money, why is it legal for the collection of all states? The United States is expressly authorized by Article I, Section 8 as noted by not store bought dirt, while the prohibition you identify, in Article I, Section 10 applies only to the states as explained by ...


2

Indian Constitution provides for a Federal government in which power of states and centres are clearly enunciated. If there is a dispute over any issue Supreme Court can decide whether State government is correct, or whether Central government is correct. Any law of Parliament affects the entire population of India, and so all states are affected by that ...


2

It is not clear what Vijayan, Banerjee and Singh intend to do to "not implement" the law. One part of the bill adds a paragraph 6B. (1) The Central Government or an authority specified by it in this behalf may... grant a certificate of registration These states may decide to not cooperate. This would be analogous to US jurisdictions refusing to ...


2

First, the FAA and its antecedent the Civil Aeronautics Authority is grounded in the Commerce Clause, where the duty of the CAA is: §2 The encouragement and development of an air-transportation system properly adapted to the present and future needs of the foreign and domestic commerce of the United States, of the Postal Service,and of the national ...


2

You need to read the book Who Owns the Sky? The Struggle to Control Airspace from the Wright Brothers On Stuart Banner. The primary issue was not conflict between states and the Federal government but between private landowners and the Federal government. Under the common law of the time, a person who owns the soil also owns the space indefinitely upward, "...


1

A party files for declaratory relief in federal court requesting a state statute be declared unconstitutional (facially or as-applied) but chooses not to seek injunctive relief aimed at preventing its enforcement. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff and the state doesn't appeal. Later the state prosecutes the plaintiff in violation of the decree (...


1

No. The bill was passed by the national legislature, and its laws will therefore be enforced by federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Immigration. These agencies are controlled by the federal executive, the Union Council of Ministers. In the case of the Bureau of Immigration, they would report to the Minister for Home Affairs. In order for a state Chief ...


1

Absent newly enacted law in response to the end of the separate sovereigns doctrine, the first case to which jeopardy attaches (generally speaking when a jury is sworn and the first item of evidence is presented to it) would bar subsequent prosecutions, without regard to whether it arose in state or federal court. It would be a race to the court house rule. ...


1

It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the United States, the laws are at the state level and can usually be found by googling "pharmacist in charge"and the state name. Some states' laws are based off the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy's Model Rules for the Practice of Pharmacy, which includes the relevant language in section 3(a)(1): ...


1

See Dillon's Rule: Dillon’s Rule is the cornerstone of American municipal law. Under Dillon's Rule, a municipal government has authority to act only when : (1) the power is granted in the express words of the statute, private act, or charter creating the municipal corporation; (2) the power is necessarily or fairly implied in, or incident to the powers ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible