Filed December 2, 2015
Thus, the Supreme Court has long held that “[f]or local interests the several states of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power.” Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 606 (1889). Consequently, a law that has a direct impact on foreign relations is preempted and void, even if not directly conflicting with a treaty.
Filed January 14, 2013
Congress has broad powers, both enumerated and implied, to regulate immigration. See generally Chae Chan Ping v. United States (The Chinese Exclusion Case), 130 U.S. 581 (1889). The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is a comprehensive federal statutory scheme for regulation of immigration and naturalization.
Filed October 2, 2007
Indeed, insofar as NAFTA and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are both the supreme law of the land under the Constitution, ordinarily “no paramount authority is given to one over the other” but “the last expression of the sovereign will must control.” In re the Matter of Fotochrome, Inc., 377 F. Supp. 26, 31 (E.D.N.Y. 1974) (quoting The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 600 (1889)). As the supreme law of the land, therefore, subsequent treaty provisions “may supersede prior inconsistent acts of Congress.”