Top Law Schools

I'm confused as to the rule that applies after New York v. United States and Printz v. United States regarding the 10th Amendment.

States have to follow valid/constitutional federal law that conflicts according to the Supremacy Clause. If States have to follow federal law, why can't Congress force the states to follow it? Or is it that they just can't use state resources to enact the federal regulations?

Sorry if the question makes little sense I'm just awfully confused right now...

Charles Barkley wrote:I'm confused as to the rule that applies after New York v. United States and Printz v. United States regarding the 10th Amendment.

States have to follow valid/constitutional federal law that conflicts according to the Supremacy Clause. If States have to follow federal law, why can't Congress force the states to follow it? Or is it that they just can't use state resources to enact the federal regulations?

Sorry if the question makes little sense I'm just awfully confused right now...

If the federal law is such that it "commandeers" the state legislature/state officials or gives the states no choice but to comply, under the 10th amendment that federal law is not constitutional. States only have to follow valid federal law, and the 10th amendment is but one bar to the federal government "forcing" states to follow/implement federal laws and regulations.

NY v. US: federal government cannot force states to legislate.

Printz v. US: federal government cannot "comandeer" state officials.

The Tenth Amendment has very little force (if at all) except in these two areas at the moment. They violate the Tenth Amendment because they are so egregious in that they interfere with actual state governance.

Thanks. These 2 replies cleared it up for me.

I was just confused by the difference between passing valid federal law, which would preempt state law; and forcing state legislatures to adopt the federal law themselves.

Which i understand now.