Final answer:
When federal and state laws conflict, it is generally true that federal law takes precedence due to the Supremacy Clause. The necessary and proper clause expands federal power, Antifederalists were against a stronger central government, and Dillon's Rule limits local government power. Both state and federal courts hear civil and criminal cases, and federal law supersedes state law in immigration policy.
Step-by-step explanation:
Understanding Federal and State Law Conflicts
When federal and state laws conflict, the facility is required to follow federal law. This is because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which holds that federal law generally takes precedence over state law when both directly conflict. However, this is a simplified answer to a complex issue, as sometimes the application of federal versus state law can depend on the context and specific legal questions at hand.
Exercise 9.3.1 explores the effect of the necessary and proper clause on the power of the national government. The necessary and proper clause in fact expands federal power by allowing Congress to pass laws deemed necessary and proper to execute its enumerated powers. Therefore, the statement that it limits the power of the national government is false.
Exercise 9.3.3 examines the characterizations of the Antifederalists during the ratification debates. Antifederalists were those opposed to a stronger central government as proposed in the new Constitution and thus, were not really Federalists. The statement is false.
Exercise 6.1.3 inquires into the administrative powers of colonial governors. It is true that colonial governors had the right to veto legislation passed by colonial assemblies.
The Dillon's Rule is a legal principle that states local governments only have powers expressly granted to them by the state government. The rule does not grant local governments the freedom and flexibility to make decisions for themselves, thus the statement is false.
Cases in Federal and State Courts
Both state and federal courts can hear matters involving civil and criminal law. A state case is more likely to be heard by a federal court when it involves a federal question, which typically means the case implicates a provision of the U.S. Constitution, a federal statute, or a federal treaty.
Immigration federalism is a term that refers to the division of power between national and state governments concerning immigration policy. States have increasingly moved into this policy domain, especially in areas where they seek to prevent undocumented immigrants from using public services. However, federal immigration laws still trump state laws. The statement that the Arizona v. United States decision struck down all of Arizona's most restrictive provisions on undocumented immigration is not entirely accurate, making it false.