In the context of dual regulation of subject matters, state law must fall under the supremacy clause and the commerce clause when
- The subject matter is unconstitutional
<h3>What is Supremacy?</h3>
This means that one thing or one arm of government takes precedence over certain matters regarding the state based on the powers given to them by the Constitution.
With this in mind, we can see that with dual regulation where the subject matter is regulated by both the state and federal governments, the state law must fall under the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause when the subject matter is unconstitutional.
Read more about dual regulation here:
brainly.com/question/874614
The U. S. Supreme court first use judicial review to overthrow federally-enacted law in 1803.
The very first Supreme Court case in which the Court asserted its jurisdiction to declare a legislation unconstitutional was Marbury v. Madison, which was decided in 1803. Chief Justice John Marshall concluded his opinion in this case by stating that the Supreme Court's obligation to strike down unconstitutional legislation was an essential outgrowth of their oath of office, which required them to uphold the Constitution in accordance with Article Six of the Constitution.
As of 2014, the US Supreme Court had declared 176 US Congress Acts to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled 483 legislation to be wholly or partially unconstitutional between 1960 and 2019.
To know more about Marbury v. Madison:
brainly.com/question/11982017
#SPJ4
Judicial restraint is the political theory that says courts shouldn't, unless absolutely required, issue rulings that broaden or alter the character of existing laws.
<h3>Justiciable constraint is exercised by whom?</h3>
A jurist (judge or justice) who upholds a philosophy of restraint can be described as one who considers democracy to have intrinsic, rather than just instrumental, value, that the judiciary is indeed the least powerful of the three branches of government, and who values stability and predictability in the lawmaking process.
<h3>Why do advocates of judicial restraint assert that judges are impervious to public sentiment?</h3>
They are freed from the strain of the outer world of public opinion since they do not have to worry about being reelected. In the end, the majority may not always be correct. The fact that the Founders established appointed judges and elected legislators is not by coincidence.
Learn more about Judicial restraint: brainly.com/question/29545866
#SPJ4
Legal protection mechanisms would be prove useful in product invention.
<h3>What is the product invention about?</h3>
Note that any product invention is one that often needs Legal protection mechanisms if one do not want your intellectual property to be stolen.
Note that the use of Legal protection mechanisms for one's product will make it so that it cannot be easily reverse-engineered.
Learn more about legal protection from
brainly.com/question/14479936
#SPJ12
True. There is nothing in the copyright law that says you need to profit.
