Just curious and i might sound stupid for asking this, but how can State Law supersede Federal Law. The way i see it is the state although may have their local laws, they still have to abide by federal laws. If the Federal law says it is legal to brew, then shouldn't it override state law. Example local city has laws, city is part of state city has to follow state laws, state is part of country, state has to follow country laws. If this is not true then all we really all is a group of countries joined together for strength, each state really being it's own country.
10th Ammendment and 21st Ammendment.
Federal Gov cannot usurp the rights of the states. The original intent of the founding fathers was that the federal government be responsible for matters of trade, commerce, treating with foreign nations, and the common defense. Everything else was up to the individual states. Of course, the fed has steadily intruded on that, but they have not completely eliminated state's rights (yet). As a general rule, a state cannot "over ride" a federal law, in that the state cannot be less restrictive, but a state may always be more restrictive, up to the point where is becomes a constitutional issue regarding individual rights. An example is guns. There is no federal restriction on handgun ownership, nor a federal requirement for registration. Several states restrict it, and several cities have their own unique restrictions. D.C. (which is a unique entity, though generally treated legally and constitutionally as a "state" and not a city) excercised it's authority to make more restrictive gun laws than under federal law, up to the point where the supreme court ruled that it violated the individuals 2nd Ammendment rights.
An excellent example of direct conflict regarding this is federal drug laws and the battle with california. Marijuana is illegal under federal law. California legalized medicinal use. The feds said you can't do that. California did it anyway, claiming the feds have no constitutional authority to over ride the vote of the people in the state of CA. The voters overwhelmingly approved it. Now there is a conflict, ongoing. So we have a grey area in CA, where you can legally obtain a script for it, grow it, harvest it, and smoke it.......free from prosecution or arrest by state law enforcment........but the DEA could in theory swoop down on your @zz and arrest you, and you could face federal charges.
The above not withstanding, the issue of states and alcohol has an additional issue. The 21st Ammendment.
When the fed's repealed prohibition with the 21st ammendment, the 2nd section gave absolute authority to regulate and control alcoholic beverages to the individual states, IE, it did not create a "right" to alcohol, it said the feds grant all relative authority to the states. This is historically interesting, as the 21st ammendment created the 2nd instance where an individual citizen can actually violate the constitution. Today, this still holds true. The only way and individual citizen of the united states can directly violate the constitution is by:
1. Enslaving another person (13th ammendment)
2. Transporting, producing, selling, or otherwise distributing alcoholic beverages in violation of a state or territorial law. (21st Ammendment)