But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed.
And that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.
They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority.
Why should judges prefer the Constitution over ordinary statutes that contravene it? Is Publius’s argument persuasive?