what does the supremacy clause still do?

Question

the supremacy clause in the United States Constitution says that in the case of a conflict between federal and state law, federal laws will take precedence.

I've seen in many cases that this is not true. for example, in many states, guns are more regulated for that state than the 1981 revised gun control act would specify. even though many states cover the same ground as federal law, state law takes precedent in this situation. I've seen that folks say that this is because gun laws are stricter than federal regulation, but there are laws that are more relaxed than federal laws which get upheld as well.

take marijuana laws for example. federally, marijuana is still a criminal substance, but many states have passed legislation nearly directly nullifying the federal drug scheduling laws. if this isn't enough for you, let's talk about computer "hacking" laws. federally the computer fraud and abuse act has been the law since the 80s, but various court cases and rulings have reduced the act to something only enforceable through the commerce clause, with state laws (if any) taking precedence in such instances.

the supremacy clause to me is a bit of an enigma, as there are quite a few instances of courts favoring state law over federal law, and for completely different reasons in many cases. what power and consistency does the supremacy clause hold in the modern day legal system?

Answer 1

I've seen that folks say that this is because gun laws are stricter than federal regulation, but there are laws that are more relaxed than federal laws which get upheld as well.

What does "upheld" mean here? State mandated gun controls add to the Federally mandated. The Federal law still applies. Which is why your impression is that they're stricter.

take marijuana laws for example. federally, marijuana is still a criminal substance, but many states have passed legislation nearly directly nullifying the federal drug scheduling laws

Marijuana is not a criminal substance. Substances cannot be criminal, they can be organic (which marijuana is) or inorganic. The Federal law classifies marijuana as a schedule I drug, and no state has nullified that. They can't. From Federal law perspective it is a schedule I drug. But in many States, from State law perspective it is not, and under State law the use or sales of the substance are allowed, with conditions (similarly to other much more dangerous drugs like alcohol). Which means that while the US attorneys can make criminal charges, State attorneys (State level district attorneys and prosecutors) may not.

But it's not just the criminal prosecution. One of the biggest hurdles for the dispensaries is inability to use banks for their financials. Banks are regulated by the Federal government, are not allowed to facilitate criminal transactions, and as such do not allow marijuana businesses as clients. Which leads to a whole bunch of problems, both in terms of safety and security, and in terms of accounting and tax compliance, for these companies.

I'm skipping the "hacking" claim because I just don't know what laws and court cases you're referring to. Adding links and references could help better explain your point.

Bottom line is that the Supremacy clause still exists and is still valid, and Federal laws within the areas covered by the enumerated powers of Congress in the Constitution do take precedence.