I've seen people retire after 17 years due to things like PRT failures and they always say it's a law that you can't get kicked out unless you do something illegal once you hit 17. It makes sense to me because if the military could get away with it they would kick everyone out after 19 and 364 days to save money. Can someone please give me the law or instruction number? I can't find it anywhere.What law is it that allows you to retire after 17 years in the military?
You can also be discharged from the military based on HYT (high year of tenure).
For example:
You are in the AF, an E-4 with 11 years. If you do not have a line number for E-5, you will be out of a job as soon as you hit 12 years.
Each service has their own HYT system, so the numbers will vary. But, you don't retire. You are just out. Most do have a HYT step at 20 years, so no one gets caught w/o retirement.
Also, you can be discharged for refusing an assignment. You're at 19 years. You get a 3 year tour to Germany. You turn it down, you're out of a job. You're 9 months of 20 and you get orders for a remote to Korea. You turn it down, you're out. No retirement! And I've seen people do it!! Sorry, I don't know the reg on that.
The only time I've seen enlisted retirements prior to 20 is either medical or because of downsizing.
On some occasions the military will offer early retirement as a tool to downsize.
Career military personnel who are kicked out for PRT failure, prior to 20 years, get severance pay at 50% the normal rate. I believe they also keep their insurance for a limited period of time. They do not retire.What law is it that allows you to retire after 17 years in the military?
In the officers ranks, if you are 'passed over" for promotion 3 time you might as well get out. Your life will be nothing but continuous Officer KP from then on.
There is NOTHING unique about the years of service at 17. And the military is NOT in the business to "save money" by kicking people out at 19 years 364 days of service. If you receive a substandard review or a letter of reprimand your career is also over so may as well get out too.
http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/2003/HJM02鈥?/a>
There is no series of laws for active folks unless you get out on a medical retirement.
Here are some 'laws' and policies from the DoD. Read through and see what fits your situation:
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/f鈥?/a>
You need to check your sources and find out where you got the original info. Can't cut corners and get out early! They used to give money and let you out at 15, but that was in the late 90s. Go talk to transistion or you VA or your personnel. They will probably laugh at you, but it can't hurt.What law is it that allows you to retire after 17 years in the military?
I don't believe there is a Law but there is a president of others basically not getting "forced" out. But weary of this because I know of people (my previous flight chief) who were forcefully retired before they chose too.
If you want an early retirement screw it, you've been in 17 three is nothing. They probably won't even send over seas with that much time. I would just use your time in teaching the young guys the way to not get screwed over. I never had anyone teach me the ways of the military and get shafted so much I got out after 8. I am making twice as much now as a contractor but would have loved to have stayed if I had supervisors who were worth a crap.
Good luck, and remember think everything through... It's not worth throwing your career away.
Generally speaking, enlisted people need to serve 20 years to retire but there are circumstances whereby some can retire with a tad less servive using the 2.5 percent clause. that is 2.5 percent per year of basic pay. this is a rare way to retire and limited to very few.
What you are referring to is called sanctuary in the AF. Its 16 years for officers and 18 for enlisted personnel (which doesn't make sense but there you are). It doesn't mean you can't get kicked out but its more strenuous...you pretty much have to commit a felony. Sanctuary does not stop you from being demoted, relieved of duty, etc.
I'll see if I can't find you a reference.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
What law profession provides the most pay with a resonable amount of off time?
I hear lawyers make great money but that it is often followed with 90 hour work weeks. I understand that right out of law school one will have to work long hours, but with a few years under your belt and a good working knowledge of your field which area of law gives the best pay with the reasonable hours? Also what areas of alw have the best job outlook?What law profession provides the most pay with a resonable amount of off time?
I have one of the "biglaw" jobs that EvilOrange mentioned, with a $160k/yr. start, so I can speak to that. Lawyers can make great money, especially if you work in biglaw which basically means the top 100 law firms or so, most of which have starting salaries of $160k because they match each other competitively. I think 90 hours a week is an exaggeration. There will certainly be SOME weeks in which you work 90+ hours (when you have a case going to trial next week, or you have a big deal closing that week), but the average is probably more like 60~65 hours per week depending on your firm. (Which means there will also be some 40-45 hour weeks that bring down the average, but the problem is that you can't really control when those weeks occur. Your workload fluctuates in a way that can be hard to predict.) I've only been at this job for a few months, but the above is based on my experience, and from the times that I see more senior lawyers arriving/leaving the office (and how much work they bring home, if any) as well as what more senior lawyers have told me.
Most big law firms give 4 weeks' vacation to associates (20 business days off) per year, but many associates don't use up all their vacation time, because they receive too much deadline-driven work to take that much time off. You also hear stories about people being "asked" to cancel vacations sometime when things come up. So in theory you get 4 weeks, but in practice you can't count on getting that much time off.
But as EvilOrange said, most lawyers make less money than that, often around $40k~$70k to start. Salaries are especially low at non-profit / public interest orgs because they have little money and have to be very frugal. Government lawyers also make pretty low salaries, except in a few specific agencies (such as the SEC) which pay higher. (I think SEC starts around $90k at the entry level.) But at these places, you probably will only be expected to work 40-50 hours a week or so. And if you work for the government, you generally get even shorter hours and more holidays.
And as EvilOrange said, law professors probably have the most time off (all school breaks). And they get paid pretty well. Not as much as biglaw lawyers, but generally more than public interest / gov't lawyers do. In between the two pay levels.
Very few lawyers make great money, at least at first. Most law school graduates won't make over 40-50k/year, and those are the lucky ones who are getting jobs right now. If you go to the very top schools or just have crazy connections, you can make as much as 160k entry level, but again, these jobs are reserved for the graduates of the top schools, and even the students at the top schools don't always have access to them (for example, if their grades are poor). So, I wouldn't advise anyone to go to law school simply to make money because, chances are, you're not going to make the big bucks. There are 200 ABA accredited law schools in America and about 170-180 of them won't get you into biglaw - the kind of job where you work 90 hours a week.
That being said, the legal job with the best pay and the most time off, other than some small-time judge, is a law professor, but these slots are very competitive and you really need to go to a top-6 law school to have a reasonable shot (Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, UChicago, and NYU).What law profession provides the most pay with a resonable amount of off time?
Working for the Federal Government. Not all legal jobs with the feds pay great, but many can pay in the close to 100k range straight out. And 40-60 hour work weeks.
Any politician. They do nothing constructive and make big money for lieing about everything.What law profession provides the most pay with a resonable amount of off time?
Supernumerary Judge.
Nice work, if you can get it.
I have one of the "biglaw" jobs that EvilOrange mentioned, with a $160k/yr. start, so I can speak to that. Lawyers can make great money, especially if you work in biglaw which basically means the top 100 law firms or so, most of which have starting salaries of $160k because they match each other competitively. I think 90 hours a week is an exaggeration. There will certainly be SOME weeks in which you work 90+ hours (when you have a case going to trial next week, or you have a big deal closing that week), but the average is probably more like 60~65 hours per week depending on your firm. (Which means there will also be some 40-45 hour weeks that bring down the average, but the problem is that you can't really control when those weeks occur. Your workload fluctuates in a way that can be hard to predict.) I've only been at this job for a few months, but the above is based on my experience, and from the times that I see more senior lawyers arriving/leaving the office (and how much work they bring home, if any) as well as what more senior lawyers have told me.
Most big law firms give 4 weeks' vacation to associates (20 business days off) per year, but many associates don't use up all their vacation time, because they receive too much deadline-driven work to take that much time off. You also hear stories about people being "asked" to cancel vacations sometime when things come up. So in theory you get 4 weeks, but in practice you can't count on getting that much time off.
But as EvilOrange said, most lawyers make less money than that, often around $40k~$70k to start. Salaries are especially low at non-profit / public interest orgs because they have little money and have to be very frugal. Government lawyers also make pretty low salaries, except in a few specific agencies (such as the SEC) which pay higher. (I think SEC starts around $90k at the entry level.) But at these places, you probably will only be expected to work 40-50 hours a week or so. And if you work for the government, you generally get even shorter hours and more holidays.
And as EvilOrange said, law professors probably have the most time off (all school breaks). And they get paid pretty well. Not as much as biglaw lawyers, but generally more than public interest / gov't lawyers do. In between the two pay levels.
Very few lawyers make great money, at least at first. Most law school graduates won't make over 40-50k/year, and those are the lucky ones who are getting jobs right now. If you go to the very top schools or just have crazy connections, you can make as much as 160k entry level, but again, these jobs are reserved for the graduates of the top schools, and even the students at the top schools don't always have access to them (for example, if their grades are poor). So, I wouldn't advise anyone to go to law school simply to make money because, chances are, you're not going to make the big bucks. There are 200 ABA accredited law schools in America and about 170-180 of them won't get you into biglaw - the kind of job where you work 90 hours a week.
That being said, the legal job with the best pay and the most time off, other than some small-time judge, is a law professor, but these slots are very competitive and you really need to go to a top-6 law school to have a reasonable shot (Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, UChicago, and NYU).What law profession provides the most pay with a resonable amount of off time?
Working for the Federal Government. Not all legal jobs with the feds pay great, but many can pay in the close to 100k range straight out. And 40-60 hour work weeks.
Any politician. They do nothing constructive and make big money for lieing about everything.What law profession provides the most pay with a resonable amount of off time?
Supernumerary Judge.
Nice work, if you can get it.
What law defines what is a hard or soft pull on your credit report?
As everyone knows there are hard and soft pulls on your credit report. Exactly what law defines what constitutes a pull as hard or soft? Is it a law, or just common practice for credit bureaus to determine what classifies each one?What law defines what is a hard or soft pull on your credit report?
The only time someone can do a hard pull is when you have actually applied for credit or asked for a increase in a existing credit card limit.
Everything else is a soft pull.What law defines what is a hard or soft pull on your credit report?
There is no law on that, it's a matter of policy.gogos what is ms
The only time someone can do a hard pull is when you have actually applied for credit or asked for a increase in a existing credit card limit.
Everything else is a soft pull.What law defines what is a hard or soft pull on your credit report?
There is no law on that, it's a matter of policy.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
What law specifically denies unemployment benefits to a sole proprietor?
I understand that the employer can not pay himself a salary, pay payroll tax on his salary, and then collect payments if he goes out of business. I would like to know specifically where this is addressed in federal law or D.C. law.What law specifically denies unemployment benefits to a sole proprietor?
It is not Federal, but State Law. In your case DC Law.
1.) Since you are a business you have control.
- YOU CANNOT FIRE YOURSELF
2.) Also the big one - YOU ARE NOT PAYING UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES
- SO WHY would you expect to receive distributions.
Are you serious?What law specifically denies unemployment benefits to a sole proprietor?
Laws define legal obligations %26amp; restrictions rather than making every act that constitutes a "lack of common sense" either legal or illegal. The law doesn't specifically say you cannot make yourself the sole beneficiary of your Will, either, because it assumes you have enough sense not to do that!
If you are a sole proprietor, you are the only person who is in a position to decide if you should stay in business or not. I should not have my taxes pay your wages because you decided to go home!What law specifically denies unemployment benefits to a sole proprietor?
There doesn't have to be a law denying it - if there is no law permitting it, it isn't available.
It's logical if you think about it - otherwise would be too open to abuse by someone who worked just long enough to collect, then collected for half a year, etc etc etc
It is not Federal, but State Law. In your case DC Law.
1.) Since you are a business you have control.
- YOU CANNOT FIRE YOURSELF
2.) Also the big one - YOU ARE NOT PAYING UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES
- SO WHY would you expect to receive distributions.
Are you serious?What law specifically denies unemployment benefits to a sole proprietor?
Laws define legal obligations %26amp; restrictions rather than making every act that constitutes a "lack of common sense" either legal or illegal. The law doesn't specifically say you cannot make yourself the sole beneficiary of your Will, either, because it assumes you have enough sense not to do that!
If you are a sole proprietor, you are the only person who is in a position to decide if you should stay in business or not. I should not have my taxes pay your wages because you decided to go home!What law specifically denies unemployment benefits to a sole proprietor?
There doesn't have to be a law denying it - if there is no law permitting it, it isn't available.
It's logical if you think about it - otherwise would be too open to abuse by someone who worked just long enough to collect, then collected for half a year, etc etc etc
What happens if a state law refuses to enforce a federal law?
I'll give an example. The Federal Law that is probably going to be passed soon that requires restaurants to list calorie counts on their menus.
So let's say that the law is passed. Well the thing is, when a business opens, it is the state, not the federal government, that issues the business license.
So suppose that if and when this federal law is passed requiring them to post calorie counts, a state just said, "Yeah, no, don't worry about doing that, we won't enforce it."
What's the federal government going to do?What happens if a state law refuses to enforce a federal law?
states have a right to nullify any federal law
10th amendment
look at this vid for example
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Article VI, clause 2. We scholar types call it the Supremacy Clause.
However, this isn't directly relevant here. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 ("Obamacare" if you don't like it) has *already* been passed with these requirements. Any restaurant that met the PPACA requirements and didn't post calorie counts would be violating a *federal* law. So they would be dealt with in federal court -- and, if necessary, the judgment would be enforced by the U.S. Marshals Service, a federal agency. The state would have no power over it, and the feds wouldn't care one way or the other about a state-issued business license.
(BTW, I hope you aren't the same fellow who kept asking about if states decided to ignore Roe v. Wade. He or she asked the same question about every three hours for a week.)What happens if a state law refuses to enforce a federal law?
That federal law has already been passed. The new federal law requires restaurant chains with 20 or more outlets to disclose calorie counts on their food items and supply information on how many calories a healthy person should eat in a day.
There would be any number of repercussions...or none at all. I guess it would depend on the egregiousness of the flouting of the law. Since the federal law only applies to large chains, I think they'd be following federal law nationwide, so it would be moot.
However, in the past states who have moved to ignore federal laws do get punished (such as Montana's move to nullify the Endangered Species Act could result in the loss of billions of federal dollars for highways and other state projects)
As a rule, states just can't decide not to obey federal law. That being said, there's California and other medical marijuana states who are technically disobeying federal laws. The feds (until recently) have chosen to not enforce those laws.
In the absense of state law.. Federal Law prevails
sometimes there are overlapping laws %26amp; in those cases the law there are formulas to determine which law trumps the other
So.... when a restaurant doesn't follow the federal law, then the person who is concerned (the consumer) follows the procedure put in place to report the violation
Sorta of like violation of Sexual Harassment laws in the workplace... it gets reported to the Feds %26amp; it gets investigated... then once the complaint is proven to be valid fines are assessed
You might also be able to report to the county health department or something along those lines in the case of a restaurant issueWhat happens if a state law refuses to enforce a federal law?
Bring the restaurant owners into Federal Court charged with the violation of Federal law. The fines imposed by the court will bankrupt the restaurant, ending the criminal activity.
What, did you think the Feds would just stand around, wringing their hands and crying because they didn't issue the business license?
The states are not required to enforce federal law, that is federal agents job. Sounds like they will have to create more officers for enforcing restaurant menus now.
Just brilliant, who but the federal government would create a whole nuther agency when we are already broke. Itdiots.
State governments and federal governments each have their own law enforcement agencies charged with upholding state and federal law.
the fed usually try to withhold funding of some type or the other
like they did with the road speeds
or the age of alcohol consumption
or ML K's Holiday
The States have to follow federal law
So let's say that the law is passed. Well the thing is, when a business opens, it is the state, not the federal government, that issues the business license.
So suppose that if and when this federal law is passed requiring them to post calorie counts, a state just said, "Yeah, no, don't worry about doing that, we won't enforce it."
What's the federal government going to do?What happens if a state law refuses to enforce a federal law?
states have a right to nullify any federal law
10th amendment
look at this vid for example
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Article VI, clause 2. We scholar types call it the Supremacy Clause.
However, this isn't directly relevant here. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 ("Obamacare" if you don't like it) has *already* been passed with these requirements. Any restaurant that met the PPACA requirements and didn't post calorie counts would be violating a *federal* law. So they would be dealt with in federal court -- and, if necessary, the judgment would be enforced by the U.S. Marshals Service, a federal agency. The state would have no power over it, and the feds wouldn't care one way or the other about a state-issued business license.
(BTW, I hope you aren't the same fellow who kept asking about if states decided to ignore Roe v. Wade. He or she asked the same question about every three hours for a week.)What happens if a state law refuses to enforce a federal law?
That federal law has already been passed. The new federal law requires restaurant chains with 20 or more outlets to disclose calorie counts on their food items and supply information on how many calories a healthy person should eat in a day.
There would be any number of repercussions...or none at all. I guess it would depend on the egregiousness of the flouting of the law. Since the federal law only applies to large chains, I think they'd be following federal law nationwide, so it would be moot.
However, in the past states who have moved to ignore federal laws do get punished (such as Montana's move to nullify the Endangered Species Act could result in the loss of billions of federal dollars for highways and other state projects)
As a rule, states just can't decide not to obey federal law. That being said, there's California and other medical marijuana states who are technically disobeying federal laws. The feds (until recently) have chosen to not enforce those laws.
In the absense of state law.. Federal Law prevails
sometimes there are overlapping laws %26amp; in those cases the law there are formulas to determine which law trumps the other
So.... when a restaurant doesn't follow the federal law, then the person who is concerned (the consumer) follows the procedure put in place to report the violation
Sorta of like violation of Sexual Harassment laws in the workplace... it gets reported to the Feds %26amp; it gets investigated... then once the complaint is proven to be valid fines are assessed
You might also be able to report to the county health department or something along those lines in the case of a restaurant issueWhat happens if a state law refuses to enforce a federal law?
Bring the restaurant owners into Federal Court charged with the violation of Federal law. The fines imposed by the court will bankrupt the restaurant, ending the criminal activity.
What, did you think the Feds would just stand around, wringing their hands and crying because they didn't issue the business license?
The states are not required to enforce federal law, that is federal agents job. Sounds like they will have to create more officers for enforcing restaurant menus now.
Just brilliant, who but the federal government would create a whole nuther agency when we are already broke. Itdiots.
State governments and federal governments each have their own law enforcement agencies charged with upholding state and federal law.
the fed usually try to withhold funding of some type or the other
like they did with the road speeds
or the age of alcohol consumption
or ML K's Holiday
The States have to follow federal law
Good way to explain law of segregation and law of independent assortment? What is an example of each?
I'm kinda confused as to what they mean.. The teacher said law of segregatin is "alleles sperate"
And law of independent assortment is "each set of alles segregates independent of other alleles"
Ok so how could you use examples to explain these laws? Cuz I don't really get it still
thanksGood way to explain law of segregation and law of independent assortment? What is an example of each?
Ok so the law of segregation is focusing on ONE single gene. It says that when the parent passes a gene onto an offspring, it RANDOMLY gives it one of 2 allele copies.
Example: Lets assume in pigs that were looking at a single gene for coat color. The allele P gives a pink coat and the allele p gives a brown coat (just making this up, no validity intended.) Then, the probability of passing on P is the same as passing on p, because they separate independently of one another and then rejoin during fertilization.
Independent assortment refers to ALL genes. It says that what you inherit for one gene is independent (doesn't affect) what you inherit for another gene.
Example: In pigs, lets say P represents coat color and E represents eye color. Then, regardless of what the pig inherits for its coat color, it has the same chance of inheriting an allele for its eye color. The genes assort independently of one another.
If youre still confused, feel free to ask specific questions and I will attempt to address them.Good way to explain law of segregation and law of independent assortment? What is an example of each?
Assume a diploid cell with two alleles for the flower color gene, R and r. Since haploid gametes only contain 1 of each homologous pair of chromosomes, R will end up in one gamete, and r will end up in another gamete. This is segregation.
Assume a diploid with two alleles for the flower color, R and r; there are also 2 alleles for the height gene, T and t. When gametes are formed, R ends up in one gamete, and r ends up in another gamete. The same is true of the T and t alleles. Which gametes get the T and t alleles has nothing to do with which gametes get the R and r alleles. This is independent assortment; the separation of one set of alleles has nothing to do with the separation of any other. (of course, this assumes that there is no linkage between the two sets of alleles).
And law of independent assortment is "each set of alles segregates independent of other alleles"
Ok so how could you use examples to explain these laws? Cuz I don't really get it still
thanksGood way to explain law of segregation and law of independent assortment? What is an example of each?
Ok so the law of segregation is focusing on ONE single gene. It says that when the parent passes a gene onto an offspring, it RANDOMLY gives it one of 2 allele copies.
Example: Lets assume in pigs that were looking at a single gene for coat color. The allele P gives a pink coat and the allele p gives a brown coat (just making this up, no validity intended.) Then, the probability of passing on P is the same as passing on p, because they separate independently of one another and then rejoin during fertilization.
Independent assortment refers to ALL genes. It says that what you inherit for one gene is independent (doesn't affect) what you inherit for another gene.
Example: In pigs, lets say P represents coat color and E represents eye color. Then, regardless of what the pig inherits for its coat color, it has the same chance of inheriting an allele for its eye color. The genes assort independently of one another.
If youre still confused, feel free to ask specific questions and I will attempt to address them.Good way to explain law of segregation and law of independent assortment? What is an example of each?
Assume a diploid cell with two alleles for the flower color gene, R and r. Since haploid gametes only contain 1 of each homologous pair of chromosomes, R will end up in one gamete, and r will end up in another gamete. This is segregation.
Assume a diploid with two alleles for the flower color, R and r; there are also 2 alleles for the height gene, T and t. When gametes are formed, R ends up in one gamete, and r ends up in another gamete. The same is true of the T and t alleles. Which gametes get the T and t alleles has nothing to do with which gametes get the R and r alleles. This is independent assortment; the separation of one set of alleles has nothing to do with the separation of any other. (of course, this assumes that there is no linkage between the two sets of alleles).
What if a state law is against a federal law?
Which one is applied if there is any state law which is against a federal law? Or is there any law to prevent such a case?What if a state law is against a federal law?
Federal law supersedes local or state law when they are in conflict. However, a state or local law can be made that goes further than federal law. For example, a federal laws on firearms ownership (can't be a felon, can't be convicted of a domestic violence charge, cannot be mentally incapacitated, etc). A state can go even further and require a permit and set the requirements. What the state can't do is say that anyone can own a gun, including someone mentally incapacitated because it would violate federal law. In California, the state allows medical marijuana, but it is still illegal on the federal level, however, The US Attorney has chosen not to enforce the law at this time. At any point, he could go after anyone for selling it if he so decides.
they generally do not violate each other but I believe federal law supercedes or trumps state law. The feds can also punish a state for refusing to obey a federal law such as withholding money for highway repair on federal roadways or anything federal owned in the state not obeying. A state law cannot overide a federal law.What if a state law is against a federal law?
Federal law trumps state law every time, [period. Witness the feds busting up legal pot sales in California. However, more restrictive state laws can supplement fed law. Witness state gun laws that modify fed statutes. But the feds trump states anytime they desires and often do. But, the states can not nullify or defang a fed law.
state trump fed, fed serves to protect the fifty states against outside attacks and they deal with outside america trade. Everything else is state mandated.
RRRRRWhat if a state law is against a federal law?
Federal law is applied if a federal law conflicts with a state law...some states do have conflicting laws, sometimes because they are "in protest" to what the state views as usurpation of it's rights by the federal government. There are even some state constitutions that conflict with the federal constitution.
However, a state MAY give its residents MORE protection than the federal constitution without being considered in conflict.
As it is in the USA, normally, federal law would prevail over the State law.
However, practically, it is not so straightforward. For example, States have right to exercise their powers in certain spheres, such as, family, marriage and divorce. Therefore, it could happen that State laws may be different from US federal laws, BUT nevertheless, these different State laws would be absolutely lawful, constitutional and enforceable. For example, US federal law does not allow for the same-sex marriages, but several States do (e.g. Massachussetts).
"**** the Feds. States rule!" - Thomas Jefferson
Federal Law would trump the state law. The state cannot take away protections provided by the federal government. However, state law can enlarge upon those protections. For example, if the federal age of consent is 14, a state could pass a law and make the age of consent 15 or 16, but it could not make it 13.
But generally, If the Federal Law says you can't do something, and the state law says you can, the Federal Law trumps. It's called a conflict of laws. It is very common, and it comes down to a question of supremacy between the two laws. Generally speaking, Federal Law has supremacy over state laws.
federal always trumps state, state trumps city/local.
Kind of like rock, paper scissors but paper is local and really doesn't win ever.
The supremacy clause in the constitution says that federal law will rule. Most often, state laws are stricken under what is referred to as "the incorporation doctrine." If you want to know more about this topic, do a search for that term and you will find a lot. Cases such as Brown v. Board of Ed, Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona were all based on the incorporation doctrine.
In every case, Federal law wins.
Federal Law almost always prevails, unless the Supreme Court decides that the power to legislate that issue lies with the state.
The federal law overrules all state laws.
Federal law supersedes local or state law when they are in conflict. However, a state or local law can be made that goes further than federal law. For example, a federal laws on firearms ownership (can't be a felon, can't be convicted of a domestic violence charge, cannot be mentally incapacitated, etc). A state can go even further and require a permit and set the requirements. What the state can't do is say that anyone can own a gun, including someone mentally incapacitated because it would violate federal law. In California, the state allows medical marijuana, but it is still illegal on the federal level, however, The US Attorney has chosen not to enforce the law at this time. At any point, he could go after anyone for selling it if he so decides.
they generally do not violate each other but I believe federal law supercedes or trumps state law. The feds can also punish a state for refusing to obey a federal law such as withholding money for highway repair on federal roadways or anything federal owned in the state not obeying. A state law cannot overide a federal law.What if a state law is against a federal law?
Federal law trumps state law every time, [period. Witness the feds busting up legal pot sales in California. However, more restrictive state laws can supplement fed law. Witness state gun laws that modify fed statutes. But the feds trump states anytime they desires and often do. But, the states can not nullify or defang a fed law.
state trump fed, fed serves to protect the fifty states against outside attacks and they deal with outside america trade. Everything else is state mandated.
RRRRRWhat if a state law is against a federal law?
Federal law is applied if a federal law conflicts with a state law...some states do have conflicting laws, sometimes because they are "in protest" to what the state views as usurpation of it's rights by the federal government. There are even some state constitutions that conflict with the federal constitution.
However, a state MAY give its residents MORE protection than the federal constitution without being considered in conflict.
As it is in the USA, normally, federal law would prevail over the State law.
However, practically, it is not so straightforward. For example, States have right to exercise their powers in certain spheres, such as, family, marriage and divorce. Therefore, it could happen that State laws may be different from US federal laws, BUT nevertheless, these different State laws would be absolutely lawful, constitutional and enforceable. For example, US federal law does not allow for the same-sex marriages, but several States do (e.g. Massachussetts).
"**** the Feds. States rule!" - Thomas Jefferson
Federal Law would trump the state law. The state cannot take away protections provided by the federal government. However, state law can enlarge upon those protections. For example, if the federal age of consent is 14, a state could pass a law and make the age of consent 15 or 16, but it could not make it 13.
But generally, If the Federal Law says you can't do something, and the state law says you can, the Federal Law trumps. It's called a conflict of laws. It is very common, and it comes down to a question of supremacy between the two laws. Generally speaking, Federal Law has supremacy over state laws.
federal always trumps state, state trumps city/local.
Kind of like rock, paper scissors but paper is local and really doesn't win ever.
The supremacy clause in the constitution says that federal law will rule. Most often, state laws are stricken under what is referred to as "the incorporation doctrine." If you want to know more about this topic, do a search for that term and you will find a lot. Cases such as Brown v. Board of Ed, Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona were all based on the incorporation doctrine.
In every case, Federal law wins.
Federal Law almost always prevails, unless the Supreme Court decides that the power to legislate that issue lies with the state.
The federal law overrules all state laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)