<P> On the other hand, the records of the Convention support the idea that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional lies in the federal courts . At least fifteen Constitutional Convention delegates from nine states spoke about the power of the federal courts to declare federal laws unconstitutional . For example, George Mason said that under the Constitution, federal judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void ." James Madison said: "A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void ." Elbridge Gerry said that the power of federal judges to interpret federal laws includes "a power of deciding on their constitutionality ." </P> <P> Several of the Convention delegates said that the federal courts would have power to determine disputes between the federal government and the states . Charles Pinckney referred to federal judges as "Umpires between the U. States and the individual States ." John Rutledge indicated that the Supreme Court would "judge between the U.S. and particular states ." These statements indicated that the Supreme Court would have final authority in constitutional disputes between the federal government and the states . </P> <P> The records of the state ratifying conventions do not include any assertions that the states would have the power to nullify federal laws . It has been argued that certain statements in the Virginia ratifying convention, although not asserting a right of nullification, articulated a basis for the compact theory . Edmund Randolph and George Nicholas stated that Virginia's ratification of the Constitution would constitute its agreement to a contract, and that if Virginia were to state its understanding at the time of ratification that the federal government could exercise only its delegated powers, this understanding would become part of the contract and would be binding on the federal government . These statements implied a belief that Virginia, as a party to the contract, would have a right to judge the constitutional limits of federal power . </P> <P> The records of the state ratifying conventions include over three dozen statements in more than half the states asserting that the federal courts would have the power to declare laws unconstitutional . For example, Luther Martin's letter to the Maryland ratifying convention asserted that the power to declare laws unconstitutional could be exercised solely by the federal courts, and that the states would be bound by federal court decisions: "Whether, therefore, any laws or regulations of the Congress, any acts of its President or other officers, are contrary to, or not warranted by, the Constitution, rests only with the judges, who are appointed by Congress, to determine; by whose determinations every state must be bound ." John Marshall said in the Virginia convention that protection against infringement of the Constitution would be provided by the federal courts: "If (Congress) were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the (federal) judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard...They would declare it void...To what quarter will you look for protection from an infringement on the Constitution, if you will not give the power to the judiciary? There is no other body that can afford such a protection ." </P>

The state legislature of massachusetts enacts a law that directly conflicts with a federal law