Final answer:
When a federal law, such as one from the EPA, conflicts with a state law, like the one in New York for higher emissions, under the supremacy clause of Article VI, the federal law would supersede the state law. This is because valid federal laws form the 'supreme law of the land', flagging the principle of national supremacy. Therefore, the EPA's carbon emission limits would overrule the state law.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the situation where a law from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limiting carbon emissions conflicts with a New York state law that allows for higher emissions, the supremacy clause of Article VI of the Constitution comes into play. This clause establishes that the federal law would supersede state law in such a case. By this clause, regulations set by federal agencies such as the EPA, if legitimately promulgated, form the 'supreme law of the land' and override conflicting state laws, emphasizing the principle of national supremacy.
It's important to note that these laws and regulations are often a result of legislators' and EPA analysts' decision-making, potentially subject to lobbying, and may contain fine print and exceptions. The EPA's regulations, though initially established for environmental protection, undergo changes through political processes.
The principle of national supremacy is exemplified in cases such as the Clean Air Act set by the EPA. States are responsible for implementing the standards established at the federal level by the EPA. So, in this case, the EPA's limits on carbon emissions would take precedence over the more lenient New York state law.
Learn more about Supremacy Clause