The President as national executive, and Congress as national legislature, have also received from the Constitution the right of interfering in certain specified matters with the governments of the States. Congress of course does this by way of legislation, and when an Act of Congress, made within the powers conferred by the Constitution, conflicts with a State statute, the former prevails against the latter. It prevails by making the latter null and void, so that if a State statute has been duly passed upon a matter not forbidden to a State by the Constitution, and subsequently Congress passes an act on the same matter, being one whereon Congress has received the right to legislate, the State statute, which was previously valid, now becomes invalid to the extent to which it conflicts with the Act of Congress. For instance, Congress has power to establish a uniform law of bankruptcy over the whole Union. It has formerly, in the exercise of this power, passed bankruptcy laws; but these have been repealed, and at present the subject is left to the State laws, which are accordingly in full force in the several States.[1] Were Congress again to legislate on the subject, these State laws would lose their force;[2] and if the law passed by Congress were again repealed, they would again spring into life. The field of this so-called concurrent legislation is large, for Congress has not yet exercised all the powers vested in it of superseding State action.
It was remarked in the last chapter that in determining the powers of Congress on the one hand and of a State government on the other, opposite methods have to be followed. The presumption is always in favour of the State; and in order to show that it cannot legislate on a subject, there must be pointed out within the four corners of the Constitution some express prohibition of the right which it prima facie possesses, or some implied prohibition arising from the fact that legislation by it would conflict with legitimate federal authority.[3]
- ↑ See the interesting case of Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 196.
- ↑ And in this instance they would lose their force altogether, because the power of Congress being to establish a "uniform" law, the continued existence of statutes differing in the different States would prevent the law of bankruptcy from being uniform over the Union.
- ↑ Otherwise in the Federal Constitution of Canada. See Note to Chapter XXX.
to bring into its jurisdiction intoxicating liquors from another State (Bowman v. C. & N. W. Rly. 125 U. S., p. 465); cf. Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S., p. 100; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S., p. 313.
