Which accurately describes the supremacy clause?

Question: Which accurately describes the supremacy clause?

1. States can violate federal law with a judge’s consent.
2. No state can contradict federal law.
3. Only judges may amend the Constitution.
4.  Federal judges may never contradict state laws.​

Answer: 1. No state can contradict federal law.

The supremacy clause, in the U.S. Constitution Article VI, section 2 outlines the part that federal law will bear dominance over state law when the two are in conflict. This basic principle is inalienable to the framework of American federalism and guarantees the provision of a harmonized legal environment in the nation. A clause of the Constitution reads that the Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties shall be the supreme law of the land, and thus, shall prevail over state enactments and even the state charter.

To elaborate on this principle, let me the list of examples here: For instance, although some states allow the use of medical marijuana, the federal law frowns at it and federal agencies can crack down on it. Another example is environmental regulations: federal standards would eclipse any state’s efforts to reduce the stringencies of environmental standards of the latter. The supremacy clause is also seen in subjects such as civil liberties in which federal laws take precedence over any state laws that might seek to restrict civil liberties. Although, it is important to realize that the supremacy clause does not indicate that the federal government is omnipotent. It only works under situations, which require the federal government to provide some form of remedy within its constitutional jurisdictions. Concerning exercised in the areas not delegated to the federal government, the rights return to the states by the Tenth Amendment provisions. The supremacy clause therefore also protects the principle of federalism as well as federal uniformity in the American system of federal government.