Supremacy Clause
Encyclopedia
Article VI
, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law
when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution
or state law
of any state
. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.
The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate
are a series of 85 articles or essays advocating the ratification of the United States Constitution
. There are two sections of the essays that deal with the Supremacy Clause. Within these Alexander Hamilton
argues that the Supremacy Clause is simply an assurance that the government's powers can be properly executed, saying that a law itself implies supremacy, and without supremacy it would amount to nothing. James Madison
similarly defends the Supremacy Clause as vital to the functioning of the nation. He noted that state legislatures were invested with all powers not specifically defined in the constitution, but also said that having the federal government subservient to various state constitutions would be an inversion of the principles of government, comparing it to having the brain subservient to limbs of the body.
Federalist No. 33
, January 2, 1788, Alexander Hamilton
Federalist No. 44
, January 25, 1788, James Madison
, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the Supreme Court for the first time relied on the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute. The state of Virginia had passed a statute during the Revolutionary War allowing the state to confiscate debt payments by Virginia citizens to British creditors. The Supreme Court found that this Virginia statute was inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris
with Britain, which protected the rights of British creditors. Relying on the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court held that the Treaty superseded the Virginia statute, and that it was the duty of the courts to declare the Virginia statute "null and void."
In McCulloch v. Maryland
, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), the Supreme Court reviewed a tax levied by the state of Maryland on the federally incorporated Bank of the United States. The Court found that if a state had the power to tax a federally incorporated institution, then the state effectively had the power to destroy the federal institution, thereby thwarting the intent and purpose of Congress. This would make the states superior to the federal government. The Court found that this would be inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law superior to state law. The Court therefore held that Maryland's tax on the Bank was unconstitutional because it violated the Supremacy Clause.
In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), and Cohens v. Virginia
, 19 U.S. 264 (1821), the Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause and the judicial power granted in Article III give the Supreme Court the power to review state court decisions involving issues arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Thus, the Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law, including constitutional interpretation, and can overrule decisions by state courts.
In Ableman v. Booth
, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
In Pennsylvania v. Nelson
, 350 U.S. 497 (1956) the Supreme Court struck down the Pennsylvania Sedition Act, which made advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force a crime under Pennsylvania state law. The Supreme Court held that when federal interest in an area of law is sufficiently dominant, federal law must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject; and a state law is not to be declared a help when state law goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go.
In Cooper v. Aaron
, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), the Supreme Court rejected attempts by the state of Arkansas to nullify the Court's school desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education
. The state of Arkansas, acting on a theory of states' rights, had adopted several statutes designed to nullify the desegregation ruling. The Supreme Court relied on the Supremacy Clause to hold that the federal law controlled and could not be nullified by state statutes or officials.
In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, , the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:
In 1922, the Court applied the Supremacy Clause to international treaties, holding in the case of Missouri v. Holland
, 252 U.S. 416
(1920), that the Federal government's ability to make treaties
is supreme over any State concerns that such treaties might abrogate states' rights
arising under the Tenth Amendment
.
The Federal Supreme Court has also held that only specific, "unmistakable" acts of Congress may be held to trigger the Supremacy Clause. The State of Montana had imposed a 30 percent tax on most sub-bituminous coal
mined there. The Commonwealth Edison Company and other utility companies argued, in part, that the Montana tax "frustrated" the broad goals of the national energy policy. However, in the case of Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana
, , the Supreme Court disagreed. Any appeal to claims about "national policy", the Court said, were insufficient to overturn a State law under the Supremacy Clause unless "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained".
However, in the case of California v. ARC America Corp., , the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressedly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify
the State action. The Supreme Court further found in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council
, , that even when a State law is not in direct conflict with a Federal law, the State law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives". Congress need not expressly assert any preemption over State laws either, because Congress may implicitly assume this preemption under the Constitution.
was proposed in response to such fears. This proposed amendment would have mandated that all American treaties shall not conflict with the manifest powers granted to the Federal Government. Subsequent Federal court cases such as Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955), Diggs v. Schultz, 470 F.2d 461 (1972), and Reid v. Covert
, have, over the course of time, established in legal decisions most of the limitations that had been proposed by the Bricker Amendment.
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:
Article Six of the United States Constitution
Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, forbids a religious test as a requirement for holding a governmental position and holds the United States under the...
, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law
Law of the United States
The law of the United States consists of many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States...
when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution
State constitution (United States)
In the United States, each state has its own constitution.Usually, they are longer than the 7,500-word federal Constitution and are more detailed regarding the day-to-day relationships between government and the people. The shortest is the Constitution of Vermont, adopted in 1793 and currently...
or state law
State law
In the United States, state law is the law of each separate U.S. state, as passed by the state legislature and adjudicated by state courts. It exists in parallel, and sometimes in conflict with, United States federal law. These disputes are often resolved by the federal courts.-See also:*List of U.S...
of any state
U.S. state
A U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of...
. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.
The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate
United States Senate
The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral legislature of the United States, and together with the United States House of Representatives comprises the United States Congress. The composition and powers of the Senate are established in Article One of the U.S. Constitution. Each...
Text
Federalist Papers
The Federalist PapersFederalist Papers
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October 1787 and August 1788...
are a series of 85 articles or essays advocating the ratification of the United States Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
. There are two sections of the essays that deal with the Supremacy Clause. Within these Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton was a Founding Father, soldier, economist, political philosopher, one of America's first constitutional lawyers and the first United States Secretary of the Treasury...
argues that the Supremacy Clause is simply an assurance that the government's powers can be properly executed, saying that a law itself implies supremacy, and without supremacy it would amount to nothing. James Madison
James Madison
James Madison, Jr. was an American statesman and political theorist. He was the fourth President of the United States and is hailed as the “Father of the Constitution” for being the primary author of the United States Constitution and at first an opponent of, and then a key author of the United...
similarly defends the Supremacy Clause as vital to the functioning of the nation. He noted that state legislatures were invested with all powers not specifically defined in the constitution, but also said that having the federal government subservient to various state constitutions would be an inversion of the principles of government, comparing it to having the brain subservient to limbs of the body.
Federalist No. 33
Federalist No. 33
Federalist No. 33 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the thirty-third of the Federalist Papers. It was published on January 2, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all the Federalist Papers were published. This is the fourth of seven essays by Hamilton on the then-controversial...
, January 2, 1788, Alexander Hamilton
"But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land. But what inference can be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing. A LAW, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe. This results from every political association. If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a government, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed."
Federalist No. 44
Federalist No. 44
Federalist No. 44 is an essay by James Madison, the forty-fourth of the Federalist Papers. It was published on January 25, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all the Federalist Papers were published...
, January 25, 1788, James Madison
"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the Constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it also, without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State constitutions had been left complete by a saving clause in their favor. In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed Constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the Confederation, would have been annulled, and the new Congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors. In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the States do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the Confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former would, in such States, have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution. In the third place, as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law, of great and equal importance to the States, would interfere with some and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the States, at the same time that it would have no effect in others. In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members."
Supreme Court interpretations
In Ware v. HyltonWare v. Hylton
Ware v. Hylton is the short name of a United States Supreme Court case where a divided court ruled that an article in the Treaty of Paris, which provided that debtors on both sides should meet no lawful impediment when recovering bona fide debts, took precedence and overruled a Virginia law passed...
, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the Supreme Court for the first time relied on the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute. The state of Virginia had passed a statute during the Revolutionary War allowing the state to confiscate debt payments by Virginia citizens to British creditors. The Supreme Court found that this Virginia statute was inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris
Treaty of Paris (1783)
The Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783, ended the American Revolutionary War between Great Britain on the one hand and the United States of America and its allies on the other. The other combatant nations, France, Spain and the Dutch Republic had separate agreements; for details of...
with Britain, which protected the rights of British creditors. Relying on the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court held that the Treaty superseded the Virginia statute, and that it was the duty of the courts to declare the Virginia statute "null and void."
In McCulloch v. Maryland
McCulloch v. Maryland
McCulloch v. Maryland, , was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland...
, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), the Supreme Court reviewed a tax levied by the state of Maryland on the federally incorporated Bank of the United States. The Court found that if a state had the power to tax a federally incorporated institution, then the state effectively had the power to destroy the federal institution, thereby thwarting the intent and purpose of Congress. This would make the states superior to the federal government. The Court found that this would be inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law superior to state law. The Court therefore held that Maryland's tax on the Bank was unconstitutional because it violated the Supremacy Clause.
In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided on March 20, 1816. It was the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in matters of federal law.-Background:...
, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), and Cohens v. Virginia
Cohens v. Virginia
Cohens v. Virginia, , was a United States Supreme Court decision most noted for John Marshall and the Court's assertion of its power to review state supreme court decisions in criminal law matters when the plaintiff claims that their Constitutional rights have been violated...
, 19 U.S. 264 (1821), the Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause and the judicial power granted in Article III give the Supreme Court the power to review state court decisions involving issues arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Thus, the Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law, including constitutional interpretation, and can overrule decisions by state courts.
In Ableman v. Booth
Ableman v. Booth
Ableman v. Booth, , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin....
, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
In Pennsylvania v. Nelson
Pennsylvania v. Nelson
Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 , was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States that established a precedent for the preemption of United States Federal law over State laws. The case was argued November 15-16, 1955 and the decision was handed down April 2, 1956...
, 350 U.S. 497 (1956) the Supreme Court struck down the Pennsylvania Sedition Act, which made advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force a crime under Pennsylvania state law. The Supreme Court held that when federal interest in an area of law is sufficiently dominant, federal law must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject; and a state law is not to be declared a help when state law goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go.
In Cooper v. Aaron
Cooper v. Aaron
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 , was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the states were bound by the Court's decisions, and could not choose to ignore them.-Background of the case:...
, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), the Supreme Court rejected attempts by the state of Arkansas to nullify the Court's school desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education
Brown v. Board of Education
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 which...
. The state of Arkansas, acting on a theory of states' rights, had adopted several statutes designed to nullify the desegregation ruling. The Supreme Court relied on the Supremacy Clause to hold that the federal law controlled and could not be nullified by state statutes or officials.
In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, , the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:
- Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
- "...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."
In 1922, the Court applied the Supremacy Clause to international treaties, holding in the case of Missouri v. Holland
Missouri v. Holland
Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 , the United States Supreme Court held that protection of its quasi-sovereign right to regulate the taking of game is a sufficient jurisdictional basis, apart from any pecuniary interest, for a bill by a State to enjoin enforcement of federal regulations over the...
, 252 U.S. 416
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1920), that the Federal government's ability to make treaties
Treaty
A treaty is an express agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an agreement, protocol, covenant, convention or exchange of letters, among other terms...
is supreme over any State concerns that such treaties might abrogate states' rights
States' rights
States' rights in U.S. politics refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government. It is often considered a loaded term because of its use in opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation...
arising under the Tenth Amendment
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791...
.
The Federal Supreme Court has also held that only specific, "unmistakable" acts of Congress may be held to trigger the Supremacy Clause. The State of Montana had imposed a 30 percent tax on most sub-bituminous coal
Sub-bituminous coal
Sub-bituminous coal is a type of coal whose properties range from those of lignite to those of bituminous coal and are used primarily as fuel for steam-electric power generation.- Properties:...
mined there. The Commonwealth Edison Company and other utility companies argued, in part, that the Montana tax "frustrated" the broad goals of the national energy policy. However, in the case of Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 is a 6-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a severance tax in Montana does not violate the Commerce Clause or the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution....
, , the Supreme Court disagreed. Any appeal to claims about "national policy", the Court said, were insufficient to overturn a State law under the Supremacy Clause unless "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained".
However, in the case of California v. ARC America Corp., , the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressedly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify
Nullification (U.S. Constitution)
Nullification is a legal theory that a State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional...
the State action. The Supreme Court further found in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States used the preemption doctrine to strike down the Massachusetts Burma Law, a law that effectively prohibited Massachusetts' governmental agencies from buying goods and services from...
, , that even when a State law is not in direct conflict with a Federal law, the State law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives". Congress need not expressly assert any preemption over State laws either, because Congress may implicitly assume this preemption under the Constitution.
Concerns about treaties
There has been some debate as to whether or not some of the basic principles of the United States Constitution, such as the country's system of government or Bill of Rights, could be affected by an ambitious treaty. In the 1950s, a Constitutional Amendment known as the Bricker AmendmentBricker Amendment
The Bricker Amendment is the collective name of a series of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution considered by the United States Senate in the 1950s. These amendments would have placed restrictions on the scope and ratification of treaties and executive agreements entered into by...
was proposed in response to such fears. This proposed amendment would have mandated that all American treaties shall not conflict with the manifest powers granted to the Federal Government. Subsequent Federal court cases such as Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955), Diggs v. Schultz, 470 F.2d 461 (1972), and Reid v. Covert
Reid v. Covert
Reid v. Covert, , is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate...
, have, over the course of time, established in legal decisions most of the limitations that had been proposed by the Bricker Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment
Striking similarities exist between the supremacy clause and the Privileges or Immunities ClausePrivileges or Immunities Clause
The Privileges or Immunities Clause is Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. It states:Along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, this clause became part of the Constitution on July 9, 1868....
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."Both of these are parts of the Federal Constitution that define the Federal Government's supremacy over the States regarding laws that have been delegated to the federal government in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. A difference between the two, however, is that whereas the Supremacy Clause deals with the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, the Fourteenth Amendment deals with the relationships among the Federal Government, the States, and the citizens of the United States.
See also
- Federal preemptionFederal preemptionFederal preemption refers to the invalidation of US state law when it conflicts with Federal law.-Constitutional basis:According to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,...
- Paramountcy (Canada)Paramountcy (Canada)In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law...
--doctrine of the Canadian Constitution - Section 109 of the Australian ConstitutionSection 109 of the Australian ConstitutionIn Australia, legislative power is held concurrently by the Commonwealth and the States. In the event of inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws, section 109 of the Constitution of Australia provides that the laws of the Commonwealth shall prevail over those of a State to the extent of...
--analogous section of the Constitution of AustraliaConstitution of AustraliaThe Constitution of Australia is the supreme law under which the Australian Commonwealth Government operates. It consists of several documents. The most important is the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia...