quote Originally posted by Will: Why would a provincial law supersede a federal law?

Happens all the time in the US, until such time that state laws are struck down at the Federal level as unconstitutional.

quote Originally posted by Will: Name three. State laws *can* be struck down because of precedence relative to federal laws, in areas in which the federal government has authority. IE, the basis for the legal action is the fact that the state law does NOT supercede the federal law.

I'll find your three examples later, but your point is the same as mine. State laws constantly are written that are MORE strict than the federal law.
In this case Provincial law says you have to have your lights on at all times.

That is by definition more strict. It supersedes the ability to have your pop up headlights down during the day time.

Now I suppose some by the book police person might start writing tickets for headlights up during the day citing the federal law..after about the third time a judge sees this and throws out the charges he's going to set a precedence that the Federal law is going to be ignored.

Now either the Federal Law gets changed or it becomes one of the thousands of federal laws that are ignored, or a Federal judge rules that the provincial law is unconstitutional, and everyone goes back to driving with their lights off during the day.

Example - 1


(The hot dog story: Michigan law is more strict than federal law, Now nothing prevents Thorn Apple Valley from selling Michigan quaility hot dogs in Toledo, but they went to the fed's and argued "WHy should we have to make two products, one for Michigan and one for the rest of the country?" The courts bought it and overrode the Michigan law.

Best Brands, on the other hand, does comply with the Michigan Standard on their Kosher product.. Since they comply with a... ur.. Higher law (Their ad almost)

Example - 2

A federal court judge in Sacramento has issued a declaratory ruling that the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") preempts a new California law, slated to take effect the first of this year, to impose stricter regulations on unsolicited advertisements via facsimile by trumping an exception for faxes sent pursuant to an established business relationship ("EBR") codified by Congress in last year's Junk Fax Prevention Act. The decision renders new Section 17538.43 of California's Business and Professions Code - which has never taken effect due to a provisional stay the court issued late last year - effectively unenforceable against interstate commercial faxes sent into California from outside the state.

Example - 3

Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association, 505 U.S. 88 (1992),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations preempted various Illinois provisions for licensing workers who handled hazardous waste materials. The state regulations had focused on health and safety, whereas the OSHA standards were aimed only at worker safety.

Justice O'Connor, writing for four justices, explained that federal law can preempt state law in several ways. First, Congress can make explicit that they intend to preempt state law in a certain area (Explicit preemption). Second, the Court may imply from the statute that Congress intended to preempt state law. This implicit preemption can be either because the statutory scheme is so pervasive that it makes reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for states to supplement the law (field preemption) or because the state law conflicts with the federal statute (conflict preemption). A state law conflict with federal law either where it would stand as an obstacle to the full purpose of the federal law or where compliance with both state and federal law would be an impossibility.

[This message has been edited by jscott1 (edited 04-07-2009).]

Further research indicates that amber is permissible, so buy the web electric kit and fully comply with the law and case closed...

Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 requires DRLs on all new vehicles made or imported after January 1, 1990. Canada's proposed DRL regulation was essentially similar to regulations in place in Scandinavia, with an axial luminous intensity limit of 1,500 candelas, but automakers objected, claiming it was too expensive to add a new front lighting device, and would increase warranty costs (by dint of increased bulb replacements) to run the low beams. After a pitched regulatory battle, the standard was rewritten to permit the use of reduced-voltage high beam headlamps producing up to 7,000 axial candelas, as well as permitting any light color from white to amber or selective yellow. These changes to the regulation permitted automakers to implement a less-costly DRL, such as by connecting the high beam filaments in series to supply each filament with half its rated voltage, or by burning the front turn signals full time except when they are actually flashing as turn indicators.