No, it's Constitutionally mandated judicial review
Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:23pm

"It is still Federal Law."

Not if the court says it isn't.

I refer you to Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78:
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

This was enacted in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

  • It is still Federal Law. Claiming that it isn't is incorrect.
    • No, it's Constitutionally mandated judicial review — Jeeves, Fri Sep 29 12:23pm
    • I Claimed...Amadeus, Wed Sep 27 4:57pm
      ...that it is not required by law. And it is not, as per the Supreme Court. Keep up. :D Amadeus