The language "unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such act and a State law so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together" has been frequently used by the Court itself. If it is held to be merely declaratory of existing law. the enactment is meaningless and the Court will still have to decide these issues as best it can on a casebycase basis. I shudder to think of the consequences if the Court were to read this proposal to mean that every State enactment must stand unless its language. on its face. is directly contrary to some valid Federal enactment. the confusion which would be engendered in such diverse fields as transportation. immigration. labor relations. agriculture. fair labor standards provisions. taxation. utilities. and a myriad of others is awful to contemplate. It is no mere rhetoric to insist that the supremacy clause has made us a Nation. it marked. indeed. the most vital departure from the Articles of Confederation. and transformed us from what German jurists designate a bundesstaat to a staatenbund. from a confederation of States to a Nation comprised of a Union of States. It is one clock that can never be turned back as our greatest national agony demonstrated for all time.
Keywords matched
immigration