3. What Is the Supreme Law of the Land and Why Is It Called This

we have understood that the Eleventh Amendment does not represent so much what it says, but the premise of our constitutional structure that it confirms: that states with intact sovereignty have entered the federal system; that the judicial authority referred to in article III is limited by this sovereignty and that a State is therefore not prosecuted before a federal court unless it has expressly accepted the action or in the “Plan of the Convention”. [Quotes omitted.] At the time of King Juan Carlos` abdication in June 2014, the Spanish constitution did not specify whether an abdicated monarch would retain his legal immunity,[35] but the government planned to make changes to make this possible. [36] The law was passed although, unlike his previous immunity, the new law does not fully protect the former sovereign. Juan Carlos must answer before the Supreme Court, in a similar type of protection granted to many senior officials and politicians in Spain. The law stipulates that all open legal questions concerning the former king will be suspended and handed over to the Supreme Court “immediately”. [37] At times, state immunity has been referred to by the prosecution as “Eleventh Amendment immunity” [,] [this] expression is [a] convenient abbreviation, but somewhat misleading, [because] the sovereign immunity of states does not derive from or is not restricted by the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. On the contrary, as the structure of the Constitution, its history and the authoritative interpretations of this Court make clear, state immunity from prosecution is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty that states enjoyed before the constitution was ratified and that they retain today (literally or because of their equal admission to the Union with other states). unless this is modified by the Convention plan or certain constitutional amendments. In 1920, the Supreme Court applied the supremacy clause to international treaties and ruled in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, that the federal government`s ability to enter into treaties takes precedence over any concern of the state that such treaties might override the rights of states under the Tenth Amendment.

This aspect of the supremacy clause reflected the fear that individual states would endanger the security of the young nation by violating U.S. treaty obligations. For example, at the end of the War of Independence, Article IV of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Great Britain had stipulated that “creditors on both sides shall have no legitimate obstacle to the recovery of the full value in pounds sterling of all bona fide debts contracted so far.” Nevertheless, several states enacted or maintained debtor reorganization laws that would violate this promise against British creditors, and British diplomats argued that these violations excused Britain`s failure to withdraw all armies and garrisons from the United States. The supremacy clause addressed this problem: just as state courts should not apply state laws that were contrary to the constitution itself, state courts should not apply state laws that conflicted with article IV of the peace treaty. In fact, the particular wording of the supremacy clause, which already covers “contracts.. under the authority of the United States”, as well as treaties that “will be concluded” in the future – has been specially designed to include already existing agreements such as the peace treaty. While modern scholars have discussed the circumstances in which contracts must be understood in order to establish decision-making rules for cases before U.S. courts, the supremacy clause undoubtedly makes such contracts possible.

In der Rechtssache Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court ruled that state courts cannot make decisions that contradict federal court decisions by invoking the supremacy clause and overturning a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Specifically, the court found that it was illegal for state officials to interfere in the work of U.S. marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violating that law. The Supreme Court argued that because the supremacy clause established federal law as the law of the land, Wisconsin courts could not overturn decisions of a federal court. The Supreme Court has ruled that under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts have final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and therefore states cannot intervene in federal court decisions. Article 17 of the Japanese Constitution states: “Any person may seek compensation from the State or a public institution if he has suffered harm as a result of the unlawful act of a public official.” [23] The State Remedies Act (国家賠償法, kokka baishōhō) was promulgated under this article. [24] Public servants who themselves commit criminal acts are not liable, although the state or a public body has the right to demand reimbursement from public servants if they show intent or gross negligence.

[25] And the Administrative Disputes Act allows people to sue the Japanese government. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution and that it is incumbent upon the judiciary to interpret what the Constitution allows. Relying on the supremacy clause, the Court found section 13 of the Judiciary Act 1789 unconstitutional in that it sought to extend the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond what was permitted by the Constitution. In Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the U.S. Supreme Court first applied the supremacy clause to enshrine state law. Virginia had passed a law during the Revolutionary War that allowed the state to confiscate debt payments from Virginia citizens from British creditors.

The Supreme Court concluded that Virginia`s law was inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris with Britain, which protected the rights of British creditors. Citing the supremacy clause, the Supreme Court ruled that the treaty replaced Virginia`s status and that it was the duty of the courts to declare Virginia`s status “null and void.” A landmark case that set a precedent for challenging broad Crown immunity and established criteria for the applicability of state laws to the Commonwealth was Henderson v Defence Housing Authority in 1997. [2] This case concerned the resolution of a dispute between Mr. Henderson and the Defence Housing Authority (DHA). Mr Henderson owned a house rented by the DHA to house members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). Under the NSW Residential Tenancies Act 1997,[3] Mr Henderson applied to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to order entry into the premises for the purpose of carrying out inspections. In response, DHA claimed that NSW`s legislation as a Commonwealth authority did not apply to it[2] and also sought restraining orders to prevent Mr Henderson from pursuing the case. Until then, the Commonwealth and its authorities had claimed full immunity from state law and had used s. 109, in order to support this view, including that the nsw act is contrary to the law that created the DHA et seq. .