John,
I had not intended my assertion that the Supremacy Clause trumped state
laws to be a strong assertion that it did not apply to federal statutes.
I will tone down any language that suggests it exclusively applies to
federal statutes.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Randy
My apologies to the list. I had thought John's message to me was
off-list, as was supposed to be my response. My reply was dashed off
too quickly before bed. Upon reviewing what I wrote in my paper and the
Supremacy Clause, I still think the Clause makes the Constitution and
the Laws of the
Well, the apology really is mine, as Randy only responded to what
appeared to be an off-list question, as indeed I had intended it to be.
I guess we all get one shot at this error -- though I am glad that mine
exposed nothing impertinent! (Not that they ever would, of course!).
Indeed, if anyone
i am wondering whether anyone knows of articles or cases that address
whether state courts are required by article VI to consider on the merits
cases that rely on new rules, in either the criminal or civil context. it
seems to me that a state could refuse to entertain such actions, under
testa,
Lewis--
Do you have an e-mail address for Ronnie?
Thanks.
--Larry
At 11:58 AM 8/26/2003, you wrote:
Since we're
discussing the Supremacy Clause and Gibbons v. Ogden is coming up soon in
class, one of the cases sometimes called historical as though
the meaning has been lost in the historical
Aug. 26, 2003
Dear David,
I don't
know the answer to your question, but if a securities case arose by way
of counterclaim in a state-law case just after James Beam, I can't
imagine that the Supreme Court would limit to federal courts James Beam
its insistence on retroactivity. So counterclaims
