Federal law also prevents the congress from
usurping state's rights for political purposes.
It might, but that's not what is happening here. States - and backwater state judges - don't have the "right" to deny constitutional rights, such as due process, to incapacitated people (or to Blacks, or to Catholics or to Jews or to any other minority that might be unpopular in the trailer-park counties of the South). The federal government has authority to step in when federal constitutional rights are being violated.
Nope.
Federal law is the 'establishing construct' of our judiciary system.
Once Congress has issued a supoena to appear the states may NOT interferre with the investigation by not allowing a witness to appear.
"Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the CONGRESS may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. "
What "political purpose" is involved here?
I hear you, but do you think something should be done to give the parents their daughter at this time?
LOL! I guess you've never heard of the supremacy clause. You really should at least read the USC before commenting on it.
That didn't stop President Eisenhower from sending the National Guard in to protect black children from entering a school in Little Rock.
And I seem to remember federal institutions intruding on "states rights" a few other times too. Like when the Supreme Court overturned all state abortion laws in Roe v. Wade. And later, overturned all state death penalty laws (though SCOTUS reversed itself on that.) And, more recently, all states' sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.
How about the feds that were sent in to the South on civil rights issues?