Essentially, this is a conflict-of-laws rule that states that certain federal laws take precedence over all state acts that conflict with federal law, but if the federal law conflicts with the Constitution, that law is null and void. In this regard, the supremacy clause follows the model of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which stated that “each State shall comply with the decision of the United States in Congress in all matters submitted to it by this Confederation.”  The supremacy clause, a constitutional provision announcing the primacy of federal law, adopts the underlying priority of federal power only if that power is expressed in the Constitution itself.  No matter what the federal or state governments want to do, they must remain within the limits of the Constitution. This makes the supremacy clause the cornerstone of the entire American political structure.   In Federalist No. 33, Alexander Hamilton writes about the supremacy clause that federal laws must by definition be supreme. If laws do not work from this position, then they mean nothing, declaring that “a law in the real sense of the word includes supremacy. This is a rule that those to whom it is prescribed must observe. This is the result of any political association. When individuals enter a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their behavior. When a number of political societies enter a larger political society, the laws they can enact according to the powers conferred on them by their constitution must necessarily be superior to those societies and the individuals who compose them. The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, clause 2) states that the Constitution, federal laws promulgated under it, and treaties entered into under its authority constitute the “supreme law of the land” and therefore prevail over all conflicting state laws.  It provides that state courts are bound by supreme law and state constitutions are subordinate to supreme law.
 However, federal laws and treaties are only paramount if they do not violate the Constitution.  Some of the issues arising from the tension between these two visions have been resolved. It is now established that the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to overturn decisions of state supreme courts in appropriate cases, and that state courts must accept the U.S. Supreme Court`s interpretation of the Constitution and federal law. It states cannot repeal federal laws — even if constitutional amendments that give them such power have been proposed. Where is this actually documented? It is in clause 2 of Article VI of the United States Constitution. The common nickname of this section is “The Supremacy Clause”, which is also the only place where this term has ever been used in the Constitution. It states that the federal government rules over state laws and, therefore, all state judges are required to abide by the clause. This also applies in situations of conflict with state laws. Each year, the courts decide an enormous number of cases on whether a particular federal law should be understood as prejudging a particular aspect of state law. Often, the central disputes in these cases boil down to questions of legal interpretation.
(If the relevant federal law contains a pre-emption clause, what does the clause mean? Should additional instructions be drawn from this on the right of first refusal? And what is the exact content of all the other legal guidelines that the law establishes, whether express or implied?) But aside from disputes over what the relevant federal law should include to say and imply, and aside from disputes over whether the Constitution really gives Congress the power to say and involve these things, some cases of preemption may involve disagreements over the supremacy clause itself. Of course, the basic principle that valid federal laws prejudge conflicting rules of state law is not controversial. However, different legal opinions suggest different views on what constitutes a conflict for this purpose, and some of these disagreements may arise from the supremacy clause: while there is no doubt that the supremacy clause sometimes forces courts to disregard the decision-making rules purportedly provided for by state law, there is room for discussion about the exact trigger for this requirement. When the Philadelphia Convention began in May 1787, Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia introduced what became known as the “Virginia Plan” — a set of resolutions that formed a plan for the Constitution. In the version, which was amended a few days later, one of the resolutions contained the following proposal: “The national legislator should be empowered […] reject all laws adopted by the individual States which, in the opinion of the national legislature, infringe the articles of the Union or the Treaties which exist under the authority of the Union. The United States and England were inspired by the infamous historical document magna carta. He played a key role in the formulation of U.S. constitutional law. The exact phrase “the law of the land” is a term used in the infamous Magna Carta document of 1215. As it was written in Latin, Magna Carta uses the term lex terrae, which translates into English as “the law of the land”.