Thanks, bigdb1
Paul, I'm not a lawyer but I know this is a particularly sticky area of the law.
I think the general idea is that state law is has to defer to federal law where the two conflict.
But if the state law is more restrictive than a restrictive federal law, there isn't a conflict, even if it may bad for us. However, theoretically it can't be unconstitutional.
And possibly it goes the other way - if the federal law [b]creates[/b] rights, you can have a state law on the same topic that is [b]more expansive[/b], but not creating fewer rights. What the federal law did would supercede and invalidate the state law.
Also, even if there is no federal law, there can be a state law, as long as it's constitutional.
I think Lordtrader & Troy were talking about otherwise 'constitutional' law.
In your answer, you intentionally used unconstitutional state law ideas to make your point, as examples of 'more restrictive' state laws.
Your purpose in doing this seemed to be to point out the inconsistency of the idea that it's OK for a state to pass any old law that would be more restrictive than a federal law (or in an area lacking federal law).
Obviously, California couldn't sustain laws like your examples. I think you're right. But your example seems to boil down to constitutional law, and 10th amendment vs. any other amendment or part of the constitution. Also the 'strict interpretation' vs. other dogmas may enter into the arguments.
Seems like this eventually goes to whether the 10th amendment allows a state to pass a law that violates another part of the constitution or not. Without being an expert, I would say probably not.
Then you might ask how can the California laws be valid in view of the 2nd. I would say that's a really good question, just as many federal laws would seem to violate it and we're still waiting to hear on that Texas case.
(was it Emerson? I wanted to say Miller but think that goes way back).
Hopefully we will hear from Steve in VA on this.
[red][size=4] P.R.K.