no It depends. Counties can set more restrictive laws than states. The more restrictive laws will always dominate. "Dry counties" are a good example of this. The "state law" says that drinking is legal for anyone over the age of 21. The "county law" says it isn't legal, for anyone, at any age. The county law, in this case, is correct. If the county law was LESS restrictive than the state law, then the state law would dominate. But counties generally don't bother making laws that they know will be meaningless. Therefore, in almost every case where a county has a drinking law that differs from the state law, the county law will override the state law.
preemption
yes
study island: it gave Congress the authority to override state law to regulate commerce
In California, when a union contract and state law are in conflict, then whichever provides more benefit to the employee prevails.
The Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was a federal law that boosted the drinking age from 18 to 21.
No.
its not a law and will not a law
supremacy clause- federal law ranks supreme over state laws
A Law Enforcement Officer's oath of office requires them to take action on all violations of the law coming to their attention. How far into the county were they? 1 mile - 2 miles - across the street? If the law you were violating was a STATE law on the drinking of alcohol, rather than a city law against it, they were probably within the bounds of their authority. If, on the other hand, you were arrested outside the geographical city limits and were charged with violating a CITY law it could be an improper arrest.
County, State, and Federal.
Oregon
In general, if a company policy conflicts with a state law, the state law will take precedence. Companies are expected to comply with all laws and regulations that apply to their operations, even if their internal policies differ.