Another supremacy clause issue concerns the supremacy clause of Article 10. 1 of the treaty that establishes a constitution for Europe. Is just similar to restating the Acquis Communautaire? What this means is that the Constitutional Treaty in its Article 10. 1 provides for a supremacy clause: that the Constitution and the legislation that the Union’s institutions adopt in carrying out its mandates shall have absolute authority over the legislation of the member states .
What this means is that supremacy is an integral component of the EU law which has even been affirmed by the court on a regular basis. This goes even further in reaffirming that fact that the supreme clause grants the federal constitution absolute authority of all laws. EFFECTS OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE The other supremacy clause issue is the effects that the supremacy clause has. Sometime back, there was an agreement that there was no need for the Supreme Court to evaluate the opinion held by the first district court of appeal .
This was for the reason that the state statute neither went against the supremacy clause nor the equal protection clauses of the constitution of the United States. This was a good test for the fact that the supreme clause grants the federal constitution absolute authority of all laws. The argument in this case was that the supreme clause was not violated for the reason that Congress had not declared an intention to dominate the filed of law .
Discretionary jurisdiction covers the powers of the judiciary to review a case but does not place the obligation of doing the same on the judiciary . This case was basically about whether or not the statute of the state which provided for the stoppage to the adjustments of the cost of living in narrowly tailored situations, was a reverse offset which violated either the supreme clause or the constitution of the United States. This statute has been reviewed on several occasions by the district to the extent of being interpreted as unambiguous .
The cases of the Supreme Court of the United States which the petitioner relied upon as the authority informing the argument he was fronting pertaining to the violation of the supremacy clause were not dispositive of the issues which the district court in this case had been arrived at . The reliance by the petitioner on the case of Rose vs. Arkansas was a good attempt in arguing the fact that the Florida Statute 440. 15 (1) (e) (1) was constitutional repugnant .
The case of Rose made it clear that the federal legislation had the intention of giving police widows, benefits more than what would be provided by the state because the supreme clause grants the federal constitution absolute authority of all laws. In other words, it could not be doubted that fact that the federal legislation preempted the filed in the filed in the case. The case had been decided by the first district court in the right way by employing the principle that have withstood the test of time, stare decisis as a way of evaluation the issues if supremacy clause .
What this means is that the statute had been reviewed in the correct manner in which case, the district court had correctly decided its constitutionality. Thus the verdict was that the court needed not to exercise the discretionary powers of jurisdiction since the constitutionality of the state statute had been rightly decided by the district court of appeal . This verdict was informed by the fact that the supreme clause grants the federal constitution absolute authority of all laws.